CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

Brendan Jones Cc: Group of Eight DVCR: Prof. Les Field - DVC (Research) [email protected] 9 / 29 Bowler Street Prof. Mike Brooks - DVC & Vice-President (Research)[email protected] Prof. Edwina Cornish - Senior DVC and DVC (Research) [email protected] Paddington QLD 4064 Prof. Margaret M Harding - DVC (Research) [email protected] Phone: +61 7 3217 5563 Prof. Max Lu - DVC (Research) [email protected] [email protected] Prof. James McCluskey - DVC (Research) [email protected] Prof. Robyn Owens - DVC (Research) [email protected] Professor Ian Chubb AC Prof. Jill Trewhella - DVC (Research) [email protected] Cc: Independent MPs. Office of the Chief Scientist Cc: Senator (Shadow Attorney-General) [email protected] Industry House Cc: The Hon MP (Shadow Treasurer) [email protected] 10 Binara Street Cc: Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP (Shadow Innovation) [email protected] Canberra City ACT 2601 Cc: Mr Michael Keenan MP (Shadow Justice) [email protected] Phone: +61 2 6276 1727 Cc: MP (Shadow Broadband) [email protected] Cc: MP (Shadow Small Business) [email protected] [email protected] Cc: Senator David Johnston (Shadow Defence) [email protected] Cc: The Hon Stuart Robert (Shadow Defence Science) [email protected] July 11, 2013 Cc: Teresa Gambaro MP (My local member) [email protected] Cc: Transparency International Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter of May 8, 2013 acknowledging my concerns regarding the Defence Trade Control Act and my whistleblower complaint reporting the systemic theft of private-sector IP by the Department of Defence.

Allegations of Ethical Misconduct by Public Servants in the Department of Defence

You asked my permission to forward my correspondence regarding ethical misconduct to the Minister of Defence for consideration:

I had previously contacted Minister for Defence Stephen Smith but found him unhelpful. He did not reply to my correspondence. 1 His office told me “hang in there,” 2 but later I was accidentally sent an e-mail which he would not explain 3 revealing his office had instructed the department not to respond to me. 4 He failed to tell me how to make a submission to his Complaints Inquiry.5 When I found out how 6 and made a submission anyway, it was misrepresented and excluded. 7[8-9] He did not stop ongoing breaches. 10 To quote Janice Weightman, one of the Defence Security Clearance Whistleblowers: “Now I have very little faith in the Defence Department and the Labor Government, and especially Defence Minister Stephen Smith. 11 ” On June 26, 2011 I wrote to him “… You can understand why my faith in you is wavering …” 12 and I ultimately formed the same opinion.

I had also contacted the Minister for Defence Science . He had written a letter to another MP in which he falsely claimed I was focused on my own case as if I did not expect the allegations of plagiarism and theft from other companies to be investigated. 13 The letter was also misleading because he said I had thanked the Defence investigator and not expressed any concerns to him. 14 This must have made me sound very two-faced to the MP who initially did not pass on the letter. The attached emails with the Defence Investigator contradict the claims in Mr. Snowdon’s letter. 15 I have repeatedly given Mr. Snowdon the benefit of the doubt and many opportunities to explain this, and he has failed on every occasion. 16 He has also failed to act on serious allegations of misconduct by 17 public officers, 17 many of whom answer to him. 18

I had also contacted the Minister for Justice and Defence Materiel Mr. Jason Clare 19 regarding the AFP’s failure to act on my crime report 20 . He never replied, but following my letter I was contacted by an AFP officer who refused to investigate my crime report and told me I could not tell anyone else or go to the media. I discussed our conversation with the Shadow Attorney-General’s office who said the officer had seriously misled me. 21

I had also contacted the Prime Minister Ms. Gillard whose office expressed concern at the allegations regarding false and misleading information, but nevertheless directed me back to Mr. Snowdon to resolve them. 22

A Defence Investigators lied in an Investigative Report, 23 24 but his boss and the Inspector General of Defence failed to act on this. 25 26 4 years after my complaint the systemic thefts have still not been investigated. 27

For the above reasons I have very little faith in these people. 28

Mr. Rudd’s recent return to power offers an opportunity to restore faith in government. However he has reappointed Mr. Smith and Mr. Snowdon in whom I have very little faith. 29 I have already reported these events to Mr. Rudd. 30 Perhaps he would take an approach from yourself more seriously, so I would appreciate it if you would instead forward my correspondence to Mr. Rudd for his urgent consideration.

Page 1 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

Corruption in the Federal Government

It is perhaps difficult for you and the other recipients to take reports of corruption within the public service seriously because of Transparency International’s continued public praise of government:

“Australia least corrupt country in G20.” December 1, 2011. Reported by Colin Brinsden, SMH. 31 http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-least-corrupt-country-in-g20-20111201-1o7vs.html

“Corruption stance gets well-earned pat on back.” Transparency International. September 14, 2012. 32 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/corruption-stance-gets-wellearned-pat-on-back-20120913-25v3v.html

Transparency International’s high anti-corruption rankings of the Australian government have contradicted the media’s own investigations into corruption:

“Editorial : In Transparency International's tables of comparative corruption, Australia usually comes out among the cleanest of countries . There are periodic scandals in state and local government but Canberra's officialdom is generally seen as far above that. But the continuing series by the Herald's investigative reporter Linton Besser on cases in the federal public service is disquieting reading.” http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/weak-safeguards-on-corruption-20111004-1l78w.html

The government publicly attacked Mr. Besser’s reports 33 . The Public Service Minister accused him of making baseless attacks on “ a soft target that will not fight back.” 34 Fairfax did not pursue the story. 35

Transparency International awarded Australia an “A” rating on their “Defence Anti-corruption Index”: 36 37

“Germany and Australia are the only countries that have strong anti-corruption mechanisms …” http://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/70_of_governments_fail_to_protect_against_corruption_in_the_d efence_sector http://government.defenceindex.org/results/countries/australia http://government.defenceindex.org/

Transparency International told me they can’t reveal who performed the assessment because they and the peer-reviewers are anonymous, 38 but I have read the assessment myself and it sounds like a self-assessment by Defence PR or someone close to them 39 because:

The assessment falsely claims that the Ombudsman investigates complaints, protects complainants and companies from discrimination. 40 Without acknowledging there is no federal anti-corruption body, it claims corruption “is subject to a wide range of federal and state/territorial sanctions ,” and then goes on to discuss ICAC’s rules for gifts without revealing it only has jurisdiction over the NSW public service. 41 It falsely assumes because rules are written down they will be enforced. 42 It does not acknowledge the publicly-reported failure of Audit Fraud units and the AFP to act on public service corruption. 43 It claims there is no unauthorised private enterprise by Defence public servants. 44 The Assessor declared the forces are “free of evidence of corruption”, completely omitting bribery, procurement bias, sexual and ethical misconduct widely reported by the media. 45 How could they have possibly not heard about that? Peer Reviewers did pick up on some of these, 46 but shouldn’t making such major omissions call into question the (anonymous) Assessor’s independence?

The assessment also praises the Australian Government’s AusAID programs without acknowledging AusAID is a TI Sponsor. 47 The assessment claims that TI-Australia scrutinises and advises the Australian Government 48 , but TI has a partnership with the Australian government which presents a conflict-of-interest. 49 I previously wrote to TI-Australia to draw to their attention the failure of oversight mechanisms including the Ombudsman, AFP, Public Service Commission, internal complaints unit and Complaints Review. TI-Australia never responded nor enquired further, 50 though TI-UK reassures me TI-Australia was not involved with the assessment. 51

The TI Assessment awarded Australia an “A” Rating which will stand until 2015. 52

TI-UK explained to me that it is not TI’s nature to name and shame but positively encourage reform. There is nothing wrong with that, but giving false praise where it is not deserved creates a sense of complacency amongst the public and the government. It makes it very hard for reports of corruption by whistleblowers or investigative journalists to be taken seriously, even Linton Besser’s.

More recently TI-Australia has called for an Federal anti-corruption body, but they have already taken the wind out of their own arguments making it easy to buy into Gary Gray’s arguments that one simply isn’t needed. 53

“Federal anti-corruption body needed” – April 10, 2013. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/federal-anticorruption-body-needed-20130410-2hluh.html

Page 2 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

The following TI article praises the government over its handling of the Reserve Bank Bribery scandal: “The fight against bribery and corruption is far from won” – “As the leading worldwide anti-corruption body, Transparency International named Australia as one of its most improved enforcers of anti-corruption …” “This is deserved recognition of the extensive forensic and international enforcement efforts of the Australian Federal Police.” http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-fight-against-bribery-and-corruption-is- far-from-won-20120913-25v0h.html Transparency International. September 14, 2012.

But it does not mention the AFP stonewalled the complaint until they were shamed by a 4 Corners report54 or that: “The man said the AFP did not appear to take his complaint seriously and made little or no effort to act on his information. ‘I was surprised that a serious matter like this and its serious implications for people involved in this activity, that it could be just sort of dismissed relatively easily,’' he said. ‘It was always 'Yeah, we're working on something else' or ‘I'm overseas, we'll get back to you’. And it sort of petered out after four or five months to no contact at all.’” 55 Later information revealed he was sacked 56 and that he (like I) had allegedly alerted top departmental officials, 57 58 including the agency head 59 .

The AFP were finally shamed into action, and I’m told once they started they conducted a proper investigation. 60 But just because you find one roach in a restaurant doesn’t mean there aren’t any more. 70

I’m sure TI has good intentions, but you don’t turn the proverbial crooked man 61 straight by telling everyone he’s honest and hoping he lives up to your praise. The glowing reference only provides him with a good cover, and makes it hard for anyone reporting his crimes to be taken seriously. I am after all reporting corruption in an agency that “ the leading worldwide anti-corruption body” has given an “A” Anti-corruption Rating . Who are people going to believe? Transparency International or me ?

Transparency International also provides a platform for that agency to boast of their ethics and integrity:

“What makes a good Code of Conduct in the defence sector? ” By Leah Wawro and Maria Gili, Transparency International’s Defence and Security Programme. June 30, 2011 “The Australians have found their own way to emphasise integrity and ethical behaviour in their defence establishments. (Name Redacted), Inspector General of Defence for the Australian Department of Defence, believes one of the major factors is the public and media scrutiny. Twice a year their parliament holds public televised committees of enquiry into the use of resources for that financial year.” 62 63

To my knowledge TI’s positive assessments of the Australian Government have never been challenged. I hope this information enables the recipients of this letter to take my complaint seriously.

Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013

The recently passed Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 offers improved protection for whistleblowers, 64 65 but it will not stop corruption because it has significant loopholes that endanger whistleblowers who use it. 66

It entrusts oversight of the scheme to the Ombudsman who both myself and other whistleblowers have found to be craven. 67 They won’t use the powers they already have 68 and will happily lead whistleblowers off a cliff. 69 The AFP already don’t enforce existing laws against corrupt public officials, 70 so “tougher penalties for reprisal against whistleblowers (up to two years in prison)” is just one law for them to ignore. 71 72 As they have done with the CSIRO, the government will claim sacking of whistleblowers is unrelated to their whistleblowing. 73 Forcing the whistleblower to first make their complaint internally exposes them to retribution. In hindsight, Defence’s internal complaints unit were the last people I should have been talking to 74

The safest course of action for any whistleblower remains never to make a complaint in the first place. Why should they risk their career, their family and their life savings to pursue legal action to try and recover costs or put themselves through the stress of Fair Work or AAT hearings? (I know of one case where a victim collapsed at a hearing and the government barrister kept attacking them while they lay on the ground.) Why should anyone put themselves through that?

Anyone who thinks these laws will work doesn’t understand government lawyers: They earn more by escalating litigation, and so dispute everything: 75 In the words of a solicitor, ‘They will look at something written in black and white right under their noses and still insist they don’t see it.’ 76 In the words of a barrister, ‘They are going to appeal this all the way to the High Court, and they will bankrupt you. … ’ 77 Although the Model Litigant Rules should prevent that, 78 they simply ignore it 79 and government ministers who could stop them stand by and do nothing. 80 The opposition was at one stage vigorously pursuing the government for this, but suddenly stopped. Another whistleblower alleged this is because legal firms profiting from abuses of the Model Litigant Policy have strong links and make donations to both parties. I put these concerns to certain MPs who did not respond. 81

Any whistleblowers who think these new laws will protect them in court are in for a rude shock. The safest thing for a whistleblower to do is shut up and look the other way. The new laws don’t change that. Page 3 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

Most flawed of all the loopholes is that public servants cannot use them to report corrupt politicians. The Attorney-General’s Department claimed that was unnecessary because: “Allegations of wrongdoing by Members of Parliament should be addressed by the Parliament” (pp. 26) and “that the appropriate supervision of MPs is by the parliament and… that is the appropriate place for MPs' conduct to be exposed, reported and made accountable , that is where MPs' accountability lies” (pp. 27) 82

Yet I reported this corruption to the Shadow Defence Science Minister Mr. Robert, the Shadow Defence Minister Senator Johnston and my local member Ms. Teresa Gambaro over 2½ years ago. 83 84 85 They have never held the government or its ministers to account: Mr. Robert and Ms. Gambaro claimed there was nothing they could do. The best I could extract from Senator Johnston was “although he does share your concerns about the way this has been handled, he can't see how he can offer you any useful assistance at this point.” 86 That was May last year. His office has ignored all my correspondence and phone calls since. 87

When the failure of the Inspector General of Defence’s investigation became apparent 88 the Defence Department took my complaint seriously enough to assign Independent Investigator Dr. Warren King .89 Yet the opposition who is supposed to hold the government accountable has 2½ years and does nothing ?90

Shadow Innovation Minister Sophie Mirabella has been very effective at exposing misconduct within the CSIRO, 91 so I cannot understand the apparent lack of interest by Senator Johnston and Mr. Robert.

I told Senator Johnston I expected him to at least condemn the practice and promise he will put a stop to it in government 92 , but he would not give me that assurance. I recall the idiom that what people don’t say is more important than what they do. I am thus concerned that if elected to government the Liberal Party will not take any action and that plagiarism and theft of IP by public servants shall be allowed to continue, and indeed will worsen under the Defence Trade Control Act .

Senator Johnston, Mr. Robert and Ms. Gambaro (my local member) continue to ignore my correspondence, 93 so I invite the Deputy Vice Chancellors of Research of the Group of 8 Universities to contact Senator Johnston directly so that he can assure them that if the Liberal Party is elected to office he will not allow public servants to plagiarise the universities’ research or to steal intellectual property revealed under the Defence Trade Control Act .

Protection of Intellectual Property under the Defence Trade Control Act

Thank you for seeking advice from your sub-group on the disclosure of Intellectual Property in seeking a permit for export controlled technology by the Defence Trade Control Act . I look forward to hearing their findings.

The US IP Commission warns: “Industrial espionage is nothing new. It is a classic business tactic used by less than reputable organizations to try and obtain a competitor’s secrets in order to gain an economic advantage in the marketplace. 94 ”

If innovators and entrepreneurs are unable to protect their IP from theft in Australia they will make a simple business decision to relocate overseas. America will be glad to have us and unlike Australia, they have strong laws protecting trade secrets which are actively enforced by their FBI. 95

The ANU’s Peter Larmour observed that crime tends to arise from circumstances, rather than the character of the offender. The Defence Trade Control Act provides public servants with the opportunity to take IP undetected. A Defence report already demonstrates sloppy handling of third-party IP by DSTO staff, 96 and the government’s lawyers assert the Commonwealth has no duty of care to protect confidential information anyway and cannot be held liable for what public servants do with it. 97 The mishandling of my own case demonstrates that when public servants steal IP that the government will do everything it can to ensure they are not held accountable. 98 All this is an open invitation for ongoing theft.

Long before the Defence Trade Control Act , Mr. Rudd’s Attorney-General Mr. Robert McClelland had already expressed concern at the lack of protection of trade secrets under Australian Law and ordered his department to consider adopting an equivalent of the US Economic Espionage Act of 1996 which would criminalise the theft of trade secrets. 99 100

Unfortunately after Mr. McClelland re-ordered an investigation into breaches of the Model Litigant Policy by government departments (including Defence), 101 he was sacked by Ms. Gillard and replaced by Ms. Roxon 102 under whom the breaches continued. 103 Although unrelated, 104 his sacking came after re-ordering an investigation which might have revealed misconduct by senior public servants and ministers. He had to re-order the investigation because the public service had ignored his original order. 105 106

Page 4 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

Conclusion

1. I appreciate your responding to my letter and thank you for taking an interest in these matters. 2. I would appreciate it if you forward my materials to Mr. Rudd for his urgent attention. I do not believe forwarding them to Mr. Smith or Mr. Snowdon would achieve anything useful. 3. I invite the Deputy Vice Chancellors of Research of the Group of 8 Universities to contact Senator Johnston directly so that he can assure them that if the Liberal Party is elected to office he will not allow public servants to plagiarise the universities’ research or to steal intellectual property revealed under the Defence Trade Control Act . Senator Johnston may be contacted on (02) 6277 3222 or (08) 9478 2088. 4. As the world’s leading anti-corruption body, Transparency International needs to take great care when awarding anti-corruption ratings and lavishing praise since regimes can use these to deflect corruption allegations. TI need to remind themselves of the rule-of-thumb that no anti-corruption organisation should last more than three years because by then corrupt officials have determined how to neutralise them, if not take advantage of them.

Nothing here is classified, though this letter is confidential and I have removed the names of public servants.

I shall send you confidential Reference Documents to substantiate my allegations, and on request can provide these to other recipients too under Qualified Privilege. I encourage other recipients of this letter to read the Attachments and Reference Documents to decide for themselves if the conclusions I have drawn in this letter are justified so they can take part in the political debate . I am only doing now this because of the impending election, and because in 2½ years neither the government nor opposition have acted on my complaint.

This letter raises important matters which the public should know, but due to the limited free speech rights 107 of Australians I am not able to release this information publicly. 108 I thus can only release it to you and the other recipients in Confidence under Qualified Privilege in the hope you will recognise its importance and act on it.

Yours Sincerely,

Note to any Identity Hackers who see this: That is not my usual signature. :-) Brendan Jones.

Attachments (Unclassified & Confidential – Qualified Privilege) – Names of all public servants have been removed 2011-02-28 Letter from Defence Science Minister with false information to Independent MP (with contradictory emails) Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia ‘A’ Rating. Correspondence with a Defence Investigator (ZIP file) & Ombudsman

Reference Documents (Unclassified & Confidential – Qualified Privilege) – Available in confidence on request.

Table of Contents Allegations of Ethical Misconduct by Public Servants in the Department of Defence...... 1 Corruption in the Federal Government...... 2 Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 ...... 3 Protection of Intellectual Property under the Defence Trade Control Act...... 4 Conclusion...... 5

This letter and attachments present allegations only: All persons must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Opinions in this letter are my own and not necessarily those of anyone I have corresponded with.

1 E-mail to Minister for Defence Stephen Smith: 2011-04-11, 2011-04-18, 2011-04-27, 2011-04-28, 2011-05-06, 2011-06-13, 2011-06-27, 2011-06-28, 2011-07-04, 2012-05-13(14) 2 Comment made over the phone by one of Mr. Smith’s staff aware of the initial ‘Kestrel’ (my company name) letters. 3 2011-05-06 Letter To Mr Smith: I wrote asking him why he had ordered the gag, but he didn’t respond. 4 “The Minister's office advised it would not be appropriate for the department to respond to this correspondence.” , E-mail from an Officer in Ministerial & Parliamentary Liaison Services to a Defence Investigator. 2011-05-05. 5 2011-07-04 Letter to Mr. Smith asking again how to make a submission to Complaints Inquiry (no response): “I have still not been provided with any information regarding making a submission to the Review of the management of incidents and complaints in defence.” 6 2013-08-03..04 E-mail exchange with Senator John Hogg’s office regarding Mr. Smith’s Complaints Inquiry. Page 5 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

7 My submission was within the Terms of Reference of the Review Of The Management Of Incidents And Complaints In Defence: TERMS OF REFERENCE REVIEW OF THE MANAGEMENT OF INCIDENTS AND COMPLAINTS IN DEFENCE Objectives: 1. To review extant policy in relation to the management of incidents and complaints with particular reference to the treatment of victims, transparency of processes and the jurisdictional interface between civil and military law in such circumstances. To achieve this, the Review will: a. identify what guidance, instructions, policies, practice and/or requirements for managing incidents and complaints under either civil or military legal/disciplinary/administrative/equity processes; b. identify any apparent weaknesses, inconsistencies or ambiguity that may exist in extant guidance, instructions, policies, practice and/or requirements; and, c. provide recommendations regarding what, if anything should be done to clarify and improve extant policy and practice. Governance: 2. The review is not intended to focus on the merits of individual cases as such except where the management of individual cases maybe relevant to current policy or practice. The arrangements in place for commanders and supervisors to manage incidents and complaints, along with Defence's procedural arrangements for the management of notifiable incidents, complaints of unacceptable behaviour and redresses or grievance, will be considered.

The Review report they produced is here: http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/incidentscomplaints/ The Review report claims of me “A civilian software developer claimed that in 2005 a senior executive in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation misrepresented his software and his business, and breached a confidentiality agreement. This claim, relating as it did to commercial matters, was outside the scope of the IGADF review.” This Review summary is itself a misrepresentation, because my whistleblower complaint also alleged plagiarism and theft from other companies , crimes, breaches of the Defence Whistleblowers Scheme, misconduct by one of the Defence Investigators and mishandling of my complaint by some of the Inspector General of Defence’s staff. An email 4 reveals one of the Defence Investigators contacted Mr. Smith’s office regarding my submission and when they wrote back that it had been already incorporated into the Complaints Review (according to a Ministerial officer) that Investigator then asked for a face-to-face meeting with the Inspector General of Defence, who later wrote to me telling me my submission was going to be rejected for being outside the Terms of Reference because my complaint was not about “Military Culture .”

As he predicted, my submission was indeed excluded from the Review. Yet the Terms of Reference of the Review of The Management Of Incidents And Complaints In Defence said absolutely nothing about it being limited to “Military Culture”, nor that it would exclude complaints about “commercial matters”: Surely complaints about fraud, serious misconduct, commercial impropriety, corrupt practices and conflict of interest were relevant given the allegations of bias by ADF staff in the $100M troop transport tender 9 or DMO staff in the $20M backpack tender? 8 If none of these are relevant then why did the Complaints Review discuss the Inspector General of Defence who handles exactly these type of complaints? “The Inspector General Defence investigates complaints of alleged fraud, serious misconduct, commercial impropriety, corrupt practices and conflict of interest.” (Review pp. 4-B1). Further my submission described breaches of the Defence Whistleblower Scheme by some of the Inspector General of Defence staff themselves. It beggars belief than none of this is relevant to a review of Complaint mishandling.

When Mr. Smith announced the Review and its scope (quoted directly into the Terms of Reference ), he said: “Events over the last week have also raised public concerns over the ADF and Defence’s management of complaints and dealing with allegations of misconduct and abuse . // It is essential that the ADF and Defence promotes and enforces the highest standards of behaviour and creates an environment where complaints can be aired and appropriately addressed .” Note he refers to both the ADF and Defence, which negates the Inspector General of Defence’s claim the only complaints about “Military Culture” (presumably by which he means “ADF Culture”) were being considered. It says nothing about “commercial matters” such as fraud being off-limits. http://www.defence.gov.au/minister/Smithtpl.cfm?CurrentID=11678

Further recall in the e-mail 4 that Mr. Smith’s office told the Investigator that they had already incorporated my submission into the Review . This suggests that it was indeed within the Terms of Reference until an unknown person took action to bury it. This is consistent with the misrepresentation of the complaint in the anonymous summaries within the report.

I never had a chance to challenge any of this at the time because the Review staff never even acknowledged receiving my submission, let alone told me they were going to exclude it. I only found out a year later when I was alerted by a journalist. See: 2011-08-16(17) (CONFIDENTIAL) Submission to The Review of the Management of Incidents and Complaints in Defence - From Brendan Jones (reference document).

8 “Major army tender cancelled after bias allegations”, 2010-02-19, Dan Oakes and Linton Besser, SMH “A multimillion-dollar tender for essential battlefield equipment has been cancelled after allegations that the army's tender process was biased. ... A separate investigation failed to find who leaked a defence report related to the tender process to one of the companies bidding for the contract.” http://www.theage.com.au/national/major-army-tender-cancelled-after-bias-allegations-20100218-oiv1.html 9 “Probes on deal to fly troops”, 2010-09-13, Richard Baker, SMH. “The Inspector-General of Defence is investigating why two officers from an Australian Defence Force unit overseeing a 2005 tender process for the flights, David Charlton and John Davies, gave inside information to the winning company, which soon after employed them.” http://www.theage.com.au/national/probes-on-deal-to-fly-troops-20100912-15701.html 10 2012-05-13(14) To Mr Smith re obligations under the Model Litigant Policy (ignored)

Page 6 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

11 “The security breach Defence tried to hide”, Des Houghton, The Courier-Mail, March 3, 2012. http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/the-security-breach-defence-tried-to-hide/story-fn6ck620-1226287784790 12 2011-06-27 Letter to Mr. Smith: “…You can understand why my faith in you is wavering too.” 13 2011-02-28 Letter from Defence Science Minister Snowdon to another MP falsely claiming satisfied with investigation: “While Mr. Jones raises issues about the broader operations of the DSTO, his primary concern focuses on the alleged theft by DSTO personnel of intellectual property in simulator software developed by Mr. Jones ” (c.f. E-mail 2012-12-16 to a Defence Investigator: “I see no will by the Minister's office to investigate this. The Head of the DSTO knew of at this at least 18 months ago and no one from his office ever called me up to ask who was involved. He appeared to defer on that issue to the Department who declined to do anything. // Plagiarism isn't tolerated amongst academics at University ; My Dad who was an academic tell me plagiarists are seen as the scum of the earth in the academic community. I've worked 25 years in the private sector and behaviour like this just isn't tolerated; Anyone who tried it would be sacked and their employer would end up in court. // It's abhorrent to have public servants stealing from taxpayers and thinking because they are government employees they can get away with it. (esp. stealing from small business who have no capability to recover from a major theft.) But they do it and they do get away with it. It's just not acceptable, and the whole culture needs to be put to a stop. ” and “I'm concerned that unless this is moved on it will continue. I did ask the defence industry program managers why they didn't sue the government. In terms of cost, peoples' time and bad publicity it isn't worth their time; They spoke about the DSTO in very angry terms, but said they have to view public service corruption as part of doing business with the government ” This e-mail also reiterated other concerns which still hadn’t been addressed by the Investigator. ) 14 2012-02-28 Letter from Mr. Snowdon continues: “In an e-mail dated 17 (actually 16) December 2010, he thanked the investigator for his most recent update. Mr. Jones did not express any dissatisfaction with the way the matter was being handled in this e-mail. ” (That’s misleading. I thanked him for replying, and then reiterated my concerns. He ignored them, so my next e-mail of 2011-01-11 said “I'm unsatisfied with your lack of progress in investigating my complaint” etc. Mr. Snowdon’s response omits this information even though the Independent MP did not write to him until 2011-01-31. 15 2010-12-16 (1) To a Defence Investigator regarding failure to seize evidence, not investigating theft from other companies 2010-12-16 (2) Email from a Defence Investigator only asking for postal address (not responding to the above concerns) 2011-01-11 Email to a Defence Investigator expressing dissatisfaction with lack of progress and handling of complaint 16 Correspondence to Mr. Snowdon regarding his actions: 2011-07-28 (via Independent MP), 2011-08-03 (via Senator Hogg), 2012-05-13(14), 2012-05-14, 2012-08-29 (via Independent MP). Calls to Mr. Snowdon’s office were not returned. 17 2012-08-29 19-Page Synopsis of Complaint provided to Mr. Snowdon for his response by an Independent MP documenting alleged crimes and misconduct by 17 public officers. 18 2012-10-16 Response from Warren Snowdon declaring “the dispute is settled” with no mention of investigation of the alleged crimes and misconduct by 17 public officers, many of whom are answerable to him. 19 2012-03-12 From Brendan Jones to Jason Clare Minister for Justice - why no response from the AFP? 20 2011-08-22 AFP Crime Report (was not responded to) 21 2012-04-20..23 Notes and Correspondence with AFP Officer provided to Shadow-Attorney General. 22 Advice given by Ms. Gillard’s letter in response to follow-up phone call to letter sent to Ms. Gillard: 2012-05-16 To the Hon. Julia Gillard from Brendan Jones re Failure to enforce Model Litigant Policy 23 2011-04-07 Inspector General of Defence Investigative Report 24 2011-04-07(11) Brendan Jones documents flaws in Defence Investigative Report 25 2011-06-07 Letter from Inspector General of Defence refusing to take any action 26 2011-04-11 First of many emails to Mr. Smith alerting him to mishandling of complaint by Inspector General of Defence. 27 2009-08-11 Original Complaint cover letter submitted to Inspector General of Defence. 28 A prominent News Limited journalist who learned this exclaimed “My God! They must really hate you!” In case you think this is politically motivated, I (used to be) a Labor voter. 29 http://www.scribd.com/doc/150948218/Rudd-Ministry-announced-July 30 Unanswered E-mails alerting Mr. Rudd of these events: 2013-04-18, 2013-06-27. 31 “Australia least corrupt country in G20”. December 1, 2011. Colin Brinsden, SMH. “Australia is the least corrupt country in the Group of 20 industrialised nations but New Zealand is top of the global list overall … Transparency International, a global organisation leading the fight against corruption, says its annual league tables …” http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-least-corrupt-country-in-g20-20111201-1o7vs.html 32 “Corruption stance gets well-earned pat on back.” Transparency International. September 14, 2012. “As the leading worldwide anti-corruption body, Transparency International named Australia as one of its most improved enforcers in our annual progress report on the enforcement of the OECD Anti-bribery Convention. The high-profile prosecution of Securency International and Note Printing Australia and several of their executives has seen Australia move from the ''little or no enforcement'' category to the ''moderate enforcement'' category. This is deserved recognition of the extensive forensic and international enforcement efforts of the Australian Federal Police.” http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/corruption-stance-gets-wellearned-pat-on-back-20120913-25v3v.html 33 “Public service keeps fraud cases private”, 2011-09-24, SMH, Linton Besser, “A code of silence surrounds graft accusations in Canberra.” http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service-keeps-fraud-cases-private-20110923-1kpdr.html

34 Opinion article by The Hon Gary Gray, AO MP Special Minister of State for Public Service and Integrity: “The Australian Public Service (APS)—and at times the whole notion of public service – does not always get the recognition it deserves. It presents a soft target that will not fight back, making it easy for politicians and Page 7 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

journalists to attack it unfairly without rebuke. . ... The Australian Government takes all fraud and corruption allegations very seriously, and is determined that all appropriate measures are taken to ensure that public funds are spent properly and accountably.” http://www.smos.gov.au/publications/2011/pu_071011.html 35 I have been unable to find any follow-up stories, but when I wrote to the Public Service Commissioner Stephen Sedgwick AO his response appeared to contradict the public assurances about his oversight powers given by the minister. (2013-04-27 Comparison of statements by Public Service Commissioner and Public Service Minister regarding PSA Accountability) 36 http://government.defenceindex.org/results/countries/australia 37 “70 per cent of governments studied have high to critical levels of corruption vulnerability; scoring in bands D, E, and F. Just two countries are placed in band A, demonstrating strong and institutionalised activity to counter corruption in this sector.” – Transparency International – Defence & Security Program – http://government.defenceindex.org/ 38 E-mail from TI-UK (Sun, 9 Jun 2013 22:17:52 -0700 (PDT)): “Our assessors and peer reviewers are anonymous. Otherwise, for many countries we would not be able to find anyone willing to work on the record.” 39 Transparency International - International Defence & Security Programme - Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index - “Australia is one of two countries placed in Band A …” http://government.defenceindex.org/results/countries/australia (Type ^p for detailed report - GI-assessment-Australia.pdf) 40 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q 68: Assessor: “Fairness and complaint resolution are Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the official Defence Department website. Additionally, the Commonwealth Ombudsman considers and investigates complaints about Australian Government departments and agencies. Protection for complainants is afforded through the Commonwealth Ombudsman.” c.f. “The security breach Defence tried to hide”, Des Houghton, The Courier-Mail, March 3, 2012. “Five of us went to the (Federal) Ombudsman but didn't get anywhere. They put it in the too-hard basket. We were given the impression that no one wins against Defence; they are too big and too powerful.” http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/the-security-breach-defence-tried-to-hide/story-fn6ck620-1226287784790 Also: 2011-07-08 Letter from Ombudsman says they have no jurisdiction to investigate Defence. 2012-05-13 Letter to Commonwealth Ombudsman disputing their lack of jurisdiction. 2012-05-25 Letter from Ombudsman refusing to take any action or correspond further. Regardless of whether they lack jurisdiction or have it but don’t use it, the fact remains they do not provide oversight. 41 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q 69. Assessor: “… The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) also explains such legal sanctions at their website under guidance on preventing corruption... knowing your risks... and... gifts and benefits"” On 2013-07-04 10:55AM I phoned ICAC who confirmed they have no jurisdiction over the Department of Defence. 42 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q 69. “Yes. The Department of Defence Ethics Manual discusses such issues. As corruption - broadly defined - is subject to a wide range of federal and state/territorial sanctions, the consequences of supply corruption range from disqualification from future employment, to fines, to imprisonment, depending on the specific laws violated.” But the laws are not enforced and Public Service Commissioner Sedgwick says if rules (e.g. APS Code of Conduct) are not enforced in another department he is powerless to stop it unless the agency head is personally corrupt. (See: 2013-04-27 Comparison of statements by Public Service Commissioner and Public Service Minister regarding PSA Accountability) etc. 43 “Federal agencies lack firepower to deal with fraud”, 2011-10-03, Canberra Times, Linton Besser. “An unknown number of corruption cases lie undiscovered inside the vast Commonwealth bureaucracy”, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/federal-agencies-lack-firepower-to-deal-with-fraud-20111003-1l5dt.html Public service keeps fraud cases private”, 2011-09-24, SMH, Linton Besser, “A code of silence surrounds graft accusations in Canberra.” http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service-keeps-fraud-cases-private-20110923-1kpdr.html 44 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q 32: “Is There Evidence Of Unauthorised Private Enterprise By Military Or Other Defence Ministry Employees? ...” Assessor: “There is no evidence of such activity. Australia's Department of Defence sets out strict guidelines for interaction with the private sector. This relationship is managed by the Director of Fraud Control Policy and Ethics, within the Fraud Control and Investigations Branch.” This is untrue.: c.f. My Letter to TI-Australia of 2012-12-07: “Three years ago I made a Whistleblower complaint to the Department of Defence reporting that for many years public servants in the Department of Defence have been stealing IP from the private sector to plagiarise for their own research and to pass on to DSTO business partners whom they fund with uncompetitive contracts and whom pay them royalties in return. I was warned about this by my contacts in the defence industry who had also been victims, but despite taking precautions to protect myself I also became a victim.” … “I have documentary proof proving that the oversight agencies are not working, and of misfeasance by (redacted redacted). Is this information of any use to you?” TI-Australia never responded. The survey was released 2013-01-29. My allegations are not new: A Senior ADF officer first warned me of misconduct in the DSTO 17 years ago.

45 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q10. Assessor: “The Australian Defence Forces are free of evidence of corruption. The Department of Defence cooperates with … Commonwealth Secretariat in maintaining high standards of integrity and freedom from undue influence. Transparency International itself plays a role in providing input to the Australian government; …” 46 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q10: Peer Reviewer: “It is not entirely true that Defence is entirely free of any forms of corruption among current and former members. Three recent examples of alleged corruption and breaches of integrity are …”

Page 8 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

47 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q 54. “Yes. In May 2011, AusAID undertook a review of its programmes for Australian officers overseas. The review focused on ensuring that personnel can effectively manage conflicts of interest, manage and mitigate local corruption, and engage in capacity-building for local authorities. In association with the Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence (APCM COE), the federal police, and the ADF, AusAID works toward monitoring and eliminating corruption risk in overseas theatres of operation” Which is fine – they have to get money from somewhere, but this relationship is clearly relevant because it could bias in the assessment (which does indeed put a lot of emphasis on AusAID). The Australian Government through Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) is a TI donor: http://www.transparency.org/whoweare/accountability/who_supports_us TI claims these funding arrangements do not affect their independence: “5. Does funding from governments compromise Transparency International's independence? // No, because donor governments have no say in our policies, and have no influence over our work. If a government was found guilty of corruption then we would not hold back from denouncing this, regardless of whether or not they contribute to our budget.” http://www.transparency.org/whoweare/organisation/faqs_on_transparency_international#governmentFunding I believe that is a naïve claim to make: It’s hard to imagine TI would risk its staff and funding of its programs by criticising the Australian Government esp. ministers. The claim of independence is not helped by its limited criticism of the government so documented in this letter. If you’re taking money from someone, you shouldn’t be giving them praise or handing them ratings. It’s far better just to say nothing at all. Further, governments rarely ever find themselves “guilty of corruption” since governments control the police and courts: As documented by my case and other cases reported in the media (referenced elsewhere in this letter) in Australia the AFP is used or called to keep embarrassing cases out of criminal court, and the Model Litigant Policy is violated to keep them out of civil court. 48 Transparency International – Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index – Australia – Q10. “TI-Australia effectively scrutinizes Government transparency and regularly publishes reports on their website.” “Transparency International itself plays a role in providing input to the Australian government; the two jointly published an overview of Australian anti-bribery legislation, with a view to maintaining compliance.” 49 “Announcement of TI-AusAID Partnership Framework in Anti-corruption in Asia Pacific”, May 25, 2009. http://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/20090525_announcement_of_ti_ausaid_partnership_framework_in_anti_corr uption “Australia and Transparency International working together to fight corruption”, May 28, 2012. http://www.ausaid.gov.au/HotTopics/Pages/Display.aspx?QID=663 50 E-mail to TI-Australia: 2012-12-07 (Letter), 2013-04-17, 2013-06-20 (Concerns with Praise & Ratings). 51 E-mail from TI-UK (2013-06-09): “Our assessors and peer reviewers are anonymous. Otherwise, for many countries we would not be able to find anyone willing to work on the record. TI-Australia were not involved in the assessment. They had the option to carry out a review of the assessment but chose not to due to time constraints.” 52 I put these and the above concerns to TI-Australia in an e-mail of 2013-06-20 but they did not respond to it, as they have not responded to by earlier e-mails. I have contacted TI-UK who have been helpful and I am discussing with them how to address this: Without knowing the identity of the anonymous Assessor or even the peer reviewers it is hard to say for sure, but what I describe here I believe the Australian assessment was biased and possibly rigged. In hindsight it’s inevitable that people with a motive to conceal corruption will try and manipulate their anti-corruption ratings. I believe it’s best if TI investigate and if appropriate acknowledge they have been a victim of fraud and develop a strategy to prevent repeats. 53 Opinion article by The Hon Gary Gray, AO MP Special Minister of State for Public Service and Integrity: “The APS already has in place powerful checks and balances that are demonstrably identifying and improving integrity issues. These checks do not represent a single body, as has been argued for, but they represent the culmination of years of effective work that ensures proper internal and external oversight of the APS.” http://www.smos.gov.au/publications/2011/pu_071011.html 54 “Dirty Money”, Nick McKenzie, 4 Corners, 2010-05-24, http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2907951.htm 55 “AFP ‘ignored corruption complaint’”, May 25, 2010, Richard Baker and Nick McKenzie. http://www.theage.com.au/national/afp-ignored-corruption-complaint-20100524-w81a.html 56 “Mr Hood has told Federal Police that Reserve Bank officials would later suggest his position was ‘untenable’ before he left NPA.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-14/whistleblower-outlines-bribery-allegations-in-securency-case/4262502 57 “It concerns what top officials in the Reserve Bank itself knew about bribery and corruption inside the RBA's subsidiaries well before the scandal became public and police began their investigation in 2009. // Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens has told Parliament several times since then that the RBA was in the dark about corruption and bribery inside the firms Securency and Note Printing Australia (NPA) before the 2009 expose. But 7.30 has obtained damning new evidence that contradicts those claims … The memo reveals that former deputy governor Ric Battellino was advised of the alleged illegal behaviour at a meeting with a whistleblower in 2007.” By Nick McKenzie with Richard Baker. August 22, 2012. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-21/rba-officials-knew-of-corruption-claims/4213488 58 “RBA’s Stevens ‘told about warning’”, Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, October 5, 2012. http://www.smh.com.au/national/rbas-stevens-told-about-warning-20121004-272bp.html 59 2011-07-04 From Brendan Jones to Dr. Ian Watt – Secretary of Defence. 60 Source: Journalist. 61 The term “crooked man” is used here only as a general expression and does not refer to any particular person. Rather “crooked man” is a personification of the Australian Government which I use to show the lack of positive effect of

Page 9 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

Transparency International’s public praise. I myself waited 17 months before approaching the opposition and the media because I didn’t want to embarrass the department or the government, but all they did was take advantage of my patience. 62 As a rule I do not name public servants in correspondence, and in this instance its difficult because this particular public servant holds a top-position and has made a public statement which Transparency International have republished. I have nevertheless blacked out his name and not listed the URL, though I can provide it on request for verification. 63 c.f. Letter to Tech Community - Federal Government Corruption - Australia too Dangerous for High-Tech Businesses 64 “Parliament did some work this week: whistleblower bill a milestone,” Suelette Dreyfus, Crikey, 2013-06-28, http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/06/28/parliament-did-some-work-this-week-whistleblower-bill-a-milestone/ 65 “‘Anyone working in government who is witness to, or has information about corruption or maladministration can now make a disclosure without fear of reprisals. These new laws will protect them from payback’ ” “Greater protections for whistleblowers”, PS News, 2013-07-02. http://www.psnews.com.au/Page_psn3682.html 66 2012-04-04(19) Letter to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus QC regarding problems with his Public Interest Disclosure Bill . (Unanswered). I did make a submission to the Senate Committee but it was rejected: “It is for the committee – not those who provide material to it – to determine relevance and to make decisions about whether material will be accepted. As previously advised, the committee has considered your material and has determined that it is not relevant to its inquiry and will not be accepted. Accordingly, I advise that no further correspondence or discussion will be entered into regarding this matter. Yours sincerely, Committee Secretary” (Ms Julie Dennett?) Email from [email protected] 2013-05-02 67 “The security breach Defence tried to hide”, Des Houghton, The Courier-Mail, March 3, 2012. She says there was a bullying culture at the base and threats not to speak out. … “Five of us went to the (Federal) Ombudsman but didn't get anywhere. They put it in the too-hard basket. We were given the impression that no one wins against Defence; they are too big and too powerful.” http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/the-security-breach-defence-tried-to-hide/story-fn6ck620-1226287784790 68 See Attachment: Correspondence with Ombudsman

Supporters of the Ombudsman often claim they don’t have ‘sufficient resources’, but I can tell the difference between someone who gives damn and someone who doesn’t. In my 27 years in the private-sector I have never once heard anyone complain of lack of resource: You find a way to do your job with what you have; If you can’t, you are replaced by someone who can be more efficiently. And in my case the Ombudsman has spent far more time “not investigating” my case than they would have if they had simply investigated it. Giving the Ombudsman more resources is a waste of money because the work culture I encountered of Ombudsman staff was one of “not wanting to know.” If they fob off a complainant there are no practical consequences (See 2011-07-08 Letter to Ombudsman), but if their enquiries antagonise high-ranking officials in the public service or a minister they would become deeply unpopular.

Jean Lennane says “There is also the practical issue of career and personal advancement within the larger bureaucracy of which the protection agency is necessarily a part. A protection officer who makes life too difficult for other bureaucrats is unlikely to achieve advancement in any other department, and prospects for promotion if confined to their own agency will be very limited.” “What Happens to Whistleblowers, and Why”, Jean Lennane, Former President of WBA, http://www.socialmedicine.info/index.php/socialmedicine/article/download/583/1242

A supporter of the PID Bill told me it would provide more resources to the Ombudsman. It won’t make a scrap of difference. If AFP police officers are too craven to take up politically-unpopular complaints, then what are the odds of an Ombudsman? The situation with the AFP is so bad that the AFP Association wants to outsource what should be criminal investigations and prosecutions to private lawyers to pursue for their own profit instead. “Fraud ‘spotters fees’ could save billions”, 2013-05-07, Canberra Times, Noel Towell and Markus Mannheim, “The Australian Federal Police Association has been urging the federal government to adopt false claims laws since 2010.” http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fraud-spotters-fees- could-save-billions-20130506-2j3xk.html (The US False Claim laws were introduced by Abraham Lincoln during a time when Defense corruption threatened his ability to win the Civil War. By comparison Australia is not under any direct threat, so the government appears to be consider corruption an acceptable burden. Indeed, a well-connected person can safely profit from it because legally it is grey-area: “Purchasing bias” on a tender is in itself not considered to be corrupt. Much like Political Donations, so long as there is no direct link between a favour and a reward it’s all quite legal.)

Supporters of the Ombudsman may not understand how these agencies work: This is something you only find out when you actually use them. They can offer any Kafkaesque excuse not to get involved. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous their excuse is, because practically you cannot challenge it. You can like I have pick their excuses apart and challenge them, but they simply reply with something along the lines of “As a matter of courtesy, I need to advise you that any further correspondence about the issues already investigated will be read and filed but not responded to.” Complaints to the Ombudsman about their own staff are handled in a similar matter. Eventually complainants get sick of being fobbed off and give up. I’m told my case is unique in that despite being fobbed off I persisted and followed to the very end every oversight avenue supposedly available to me, and have thus been able to prove although these controls exist on paper, they simply aren’t followed.

I invite recipients to read my Correspondence with the Ombudsman and form their own opinions, but my experience with Ombudsman staff is they are craven. I would not trust them to properly handle a whistleblower complaint.

Of the other whistleblowers I’ve spoken to, no one holds the Ombudsman in good regard. Relying on a small WBA survey (as quoted by Jean Lennane) of the Commonwealth Ombudsman 12% of whistleblowers found them harmful, 6% found them useless and 82% neither harmful or helpful. Figures I checked in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Annual Reports are unclear, but according to another source who interpreted them in 2010-2011 of the 579 complaints they received about

Page 10 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

their own staff (547 of those resulting in a formal complaint) that none were investigated; 324 were dismissed immediately, and 223 were looked at some more, but still not investigated. http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/pages/publications-and- media/reports/annual/ar2010-11/download/pdf/ombudsman_anrep_2010_2011.pdf (See Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2010-2011 pp. 168, 173 for the exact wording. I could not find comparative figures in the 2011-2012 report.) That the Ombudsman does not properly investigate the actions of their own staff is consistent with my own experiences.

I emphasise this because more than any other agency I hold the Ombudsman responsible for my plight. I had heard that Defence mistreated complainants. I only decided to make the complaint because the Ombudsman promised me I would be protected. Had they not made that promise, I would have read the writing on the wall and kept quiet. (Who do you blame more? The man who robs you, or the man who asks for your trust then leads you to him?) The Public Interest Disclosure Act puts the Ombudsman in the same role for other whistleblowers. That is why it is such dangerous legislation.

69 2012-05-13 Letter to the Ombudsman: “I only made my Whistleblower complaint because your officers reassured me I would be protected and that if something went wrong you would be there to help. If I had known the truth, I would have never made the complaint.” The Ombudsman refused to respond to this and said they would not correspond any further.

70 “The head of the relevant agency is given the discretion to decide whether to refer a matter to the AFP. Thus referral to the Australian Federal Police remains discretionary.” The National Anti-Corruption Plan: Submission of the Accountability Round Table, http://www.ag.gov.au/CrimeAndCorruption/AntiCorruption/Documents/TheAccountabilityRoundTable.doc “Then there are questions about the AFP's capacity to take up the cudgels. That it does so already is a myth , says Professor A. J. Brown, one of the country's most recognised public law experts. Unless the matter touches on criminality at the top end of the spectrum, the AFP has other priorities. '' There is currently no expectation [among Commonwealth agencies] that the AFP would ever help deal with other types of alleged official misconduct, such as conflicts of interest, even in complex or serious cases .” … “Of 500 internal fraud cases recorded in the Department of Immigration in the past two years, only six were referred to the AFP. // Last year, Centrelink investigated 337 of its employees for misconduct including conflicts of interest, fraud and abuse of office. In 2008, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs investigated 138 allegations that staff obtained a benefit by deception, and 475 misconduct cases between July 2007 and December 2009. How many cases were referred to the AFP by each agency in the past two years? One. The reluctance of departments to bring ignominy upon themselves is one reason for the low rate of referrals ...” “Public service keeps fraud cases private”, 2011-09-24, Linton Besser, SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service-keeps-fraud-cases-private-20110923-1kpdr.html AWB: “Former cop says inducement offered to shut AWB inquiry”, Ashley Hall, 2012-06-07, “AFP cop alleges he was bribed to shut down Australian Wheat Board corruption investigation.” http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3519929.htm “Reserve Bank of Australia: RBA governor denies asleep-at-wheel claim”, December 1, 2012, Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, “Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens has denied that the bank's handling of Australia's worst corruption scandal shows it was ''asleep at the wheel'' but has conceded - for the second time - it would have been “prudent” for police to have been told of corruption concerns when they emerged in 2007” http://www.smh.com.au/national/rba-governor-denies-asleepatwheel-claim-20121130-2ammk.html (Also 54–55.) Department of Defence (My Whistleblower Complaint): 20–21 . 71 “… The AFP has the powers needed to investigate. But there are several problems with this position. “They have a conflict of interest,” John McMillan, the former Commonwealth Ombudsman, says. “They do not want to expose a weakness in their own procedures or have the public questioning the integrity of their process. By and large the interest of an agency is to avoid any publicity questioning … its efficiency or integrity.'” “Public service keeps fraud cases private”, 2011-09-24, Linton Besser, SMH, http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service-keeps-fraud-cases-private-20110923-1kpdr.html

72 2012-05-14 From Brendan Jones to Attorney-General Ms Roxon & Minister for Defence Science Mr Snowdon:

“The Attorney-General must uphold the rule of law In a letter of November 1, 2011 I documented in detail how public servants in the Department of Defence have committed numerous breaches of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Public Service Act 1999. (Public Service Code of Conduct).

These laws are not being enforced. Despite the obvious conflict of interest the head of an agency can simply refuse to investigate corruption in their department, and have the Minister go along out of embarrassment. The AFP is disengaged and oversight agencies lack the statutory authority to act. I wrote to the Attorney-General asking what is the point of passing laws which no one enforces? The OLSC replied that the A-G “is not in a position, nor would it be appropriate for her to comment on these matters.”

Laws provide certainty needed by business to operate and for society to function. The Rule of Law holds that laws must be upheld and applied equally to everybody. Failure to uphold the law benefits no one, except those breaking it and is to the ultimate detriment of society. The Attorney-General is our country’s principal legal officer. She should not abdicate her responsibility to be an advocate for the rule of law.” 73 “Whistleblowers retrenched” , September 18, 2012, Linton Besser. “Two of three CSIRO employees who blew the whistle on alleged ''criminal or civil breaches of the law'' by the scientific organisation were later made redundant, it has been revealed. But the officials who were the subject of the complaints remain employed, the CSIRO has confirmed.” http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/whistleblowers-retrenched-20120917-262m1.html

74 2011-04-07 Investigative Report of DSTO by Inspector-General of Defence. 2011-04-07(11) Brendan Jones documents flaws in Investigative Report by Inspector-General of Defence Page 11 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

2011-06-07 Inspector-General of Defence refuses to review Investigative Report. 2011-06-27 Brendan Jones challenges Inspector-General of Defence’s rejection of review. 75 2013-04-04(19) To Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus from Brendan Jones;v61 (final print send - typos & s70 fixed) 2013-04-24(29) - Open Letter to Tech Community - Federal Government Corruption - Australia too Dangerous for High- Tech Businesses 76 Advice from Commercial & Intellectual Property law firm advising me on government litigation. 77 2012-05-14 Letter to Independent MP regarding ongoing Model Litigant Policy violations by the government. 78 “McClelland commits to model litigant rules,” Chris Merritt, The Australian, August 12, 2011. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/mcclelland-commits-to-model-litigant-rules/story-e6frg97x- 1226113390895 (To be clear: Even the opposition told me they believed Robert McClelland was an honest man who genuinely believed in the Rule of Law and the Model Litigant Policy .) 79 “Gillard Government lashed for ‘ignoring’ breaches of Model Litigant rules”, Chris Merritt, The Australian, 2012-04-13. http://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Media-13-4-12-Australian-Gillard-government-lashed-for- ignoring-breaches-of-model-litigant.pdf 80 2012-05-14 Discrepancies in Answer re MLP given by Senator Ludwig for Ms Roxon in Hansard (Q. 1439 on 2012-02-09) 2012-05-14 Letter to Ms Roxon & Mr Snowdon regarding ongoing breaches of the Model Litigant Policy. 81 Letter to 4 MPs. 82 Senate Committee Report, "Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Legislation Committee - Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 [Provisions]", The Senate (Senator Patricia Crossin, Chair, ALP, NT; Senator Gary Humphries, Deputy Chair, LP, ACT; Senator Sue Boyce, LP, QLD; Senator Mark Furner, ALP, QLD; Senator Louise Pratt, ALP, WA; Senator Penny Wright, AG, SA; Ms Julie Dennett, Committee Secretary), ISBN: 978-1-74229-849-8, http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/ Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/201013/public_interest_disclosure/report/report.pdf 83 Correspondence with Mr. Robert and staff: 2010-12-08 (phone), 2012-12-09, 2013-02-19, 2013-02-28, 2013-04-04, 2013-04-15, 2013-04-17, 2013-04-29. 84 Correspondence with Senator Johnston and staff: 2011-04-12, 2012-03-11, 2012-05-02, 2012-05-07, 2012-12-11, 2013-02-19, 2013-03-28, 2013-04-04, 2013-04-15, 2013-04-17, 2013-04-29, 2013-05-02, 2013-05-03, 2013-05-30. 85 Correspondence with Teresa Gambaro and staff: 2011-06-27 (phone), 2011-07-06, 2012-03-01..13, 2012-03-26, 2012-05- 01, 2013-02-19,2013-03-25, 2013-03-25, 2013-03-28, 2013-03-28, 2013-04-17, 2013-04-29, 2013-05-30, 2013-06-17. 86 2012-05-17 E-mail from Senator Johnston’s staffer. 87 Unanswered correspondence to Senator Johnston and staff: 2012-12-11, 2013-02-19, 2013-03-28, 2013-04-04, 2013-04-15, 2013-04-17, 2013-04-29, 2013-05-02, 2013-05-03, 2013-05-30 88 2011-08-26 Defence General Counsel offers Independent Investigation 89 2012-04-19 Letter to Mr Warren Snowdon re the abrupt termination of Dr. Kings’ Independent Investigation: Dr. King: “When I started this case I couldn’t see any similarities between KTS and (DSTO Product). Now I can’t see anything they don’t have in common.”… Dr. King expressed concern that when your Department learned this his investigation would be shut down. On Dr. King’s return to Sydney his investigation was suspended …’ Based on our conversations I believe Dr. King is a honest man and had he been allowed to conclude the investigation would have conducted it properly and competently. 90 2013-02-19 Private letter to Senator Johnston – Shadow Defence: “It seems strange that an opposition would be so reluctant to even look at a case which demonstrated serious misconduct by the government, but you seem totally unconcerned by it. This is obviously not how a parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, so I presume there is a reason for this.” 91 2013-06-26 To Teresa Gambaro MP re lack of representation (no response) [See Footnote #31 in that letter] 92 2013-02-19 Letter to Liberal National Party following failure of defence shadow ministers to question the government: “I am concerned that the shadow defence ministries remain silent on these matters. I am concerned that if the opposition is elected that the corruption will continue. I seek your reassurance that you condemn it and will put a stop to it.” 93 Unanswered correspondence to Teresa Gambaro MP: 2013-03-25, 2013-03-28, 2013-04-04, 2013-04-17, 2013-04-29, 2013-05-30, 2013-06-17. 94 The IP Commission Report. The Report of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property. May 2013. http://www.ipcommission.org/report/IP_Commission_Report_052213.pdf (pp. 40)

95 http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Espionage_Act_of_1996 96 e.g. “If (DSTO) is tasked to evaluate software belonging to a contractor, standard operating procedure that places controls on personnel doing the evaluation would be stringent. The software would only be used for evaluation purposes and would not be distributed to any other area of DSTO without the supplier’s permission. In any case, the people involved in the evaluation would have access to the software only for the purpose of the evaluation was complete, would cease to use it.” INQUIRIES INTO THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT AND THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INVOLVING DSTO. My response : While acknowledging the controls should be “stringent” the same restrictions are not placed on the report describing the confidential IP. In my case it was given to the DSTO’s own research scientists with written permission to use it for their own research. Further an obligation to confidentiality legally extends even once the evaluator has ceased using the software because in the words of a DMO IP Lawyer: “Once an idea gets into someone’s head you lose all control over it. They can use it without even realising it.” Yet the DSTO seem to think once they have finished evaluating the technology they are free to e.g. conduct similar research or develop a rival product. The proper way to handle this is by setting up Chinese Walls. It’s apparent from the report that the DSTO didn’t understand this, and in any case the Commonwealth claims public servants have no duty of care to protect our IP anyway :

Page 12 of 13 July 11, 2013 CONFIDENTIAL (Qualified Privilege)

97 “The reason we believe your claim will fail is because you allege that the Commonwealth owes innovators submitting products or technology for evaluation a duty of care to ensure that the evaluations are either fair, proper and accurate or that the confidential information is respected. There is no such duty of care in Australian law.”

Commonwealth Motion to Dismiss: Jones v. Commonwealth. (Discussed in 2012-04-19 Letter to Mr Warren Snowdon). 98 2012-08-29 19-Page Synopsis of Complaint provided to Mr. Snowdon for his response by an Independent MP documenting crimes and misconduct by 17 public officers. // 2013-04-19 Updated (Detailed) Summary of Complaint. 99 2011-09-20 Letter from the Attorney-General the Hon. Robert McClelland to an Independent MP regarding lack of protection for trade secrets in Australia and his decision to consider adopting an equivalent of US Economic Espionage Act . 100 In 1999 the Australian Government’s Australian Institute of Criminology cited a paper by Industrial Espionage: Criminal or Civil Remedies by Dr Gillian Dempsey which argued for civil remedies. It’s hard to respond to that because their case for this is (in my experience) out-of-touch with the realities of commerce: Every company I’ve worked for over the last 27 years, beginning with IBM, placed immense value on their trade secrets because by their very nature their loss can be catastrophic to their business. If trade secrets cost millions to develop, why shouldn’t they be protected? (I worked on my simulator for 12 years but was unable to protect my trade secrets from a government which openly abuses its own laws. (“Gillard government lashed for 'ignoring' breaches of model litigant rules” , http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/gillard- government-lashed-for-ignoring-breaches-of-model-litigant-rules/story-e6frg97x-1226325228917 ) As a result I lost my business and my life savings.) The AIC also fails to recognise that small businesses can’t afford to litigate large entities, or that courts are reluctant to award damages to new businesses (e.g. high-tech start-ups) due to the inherent uncertainty of new enterprises. He goes on to say “So, although individual firms may benefit from such legislation, it may not be in the overall interests of the Australian economy in the long-term.” With all due respect, I don’t believe the Institute of Criminology appreciates how the Free Enterprise system works: Businesses will not invest if their investment cannot be protected. The AIC might as well argue that burglary shouldn’t be criminalised because it promotes the sale of new TVs. http://www.aic.gov.au/media/1999/march/990330.html

101 “Gillard Government lashed for ‘ignoring’ breaches of Model Litigant rules”, Chris Merritt, The Australian, 2012-04-13. 102 “Legal industry welcomes Roxon.” Lawyers Weekly, 12 December, 2011. “The Australian legal industry has welcomed news that former Health Minister Nicola Roxon has replaced Robert McClelland to become the country's first female Attorney-General.” http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news/legal-industry-welcomes-roxon 103 2012-05-14 Discrepancies in Answer re MLP given by Senator Ludwig for Ms Roxon in Hansard (Q1439 on 2012-02-09) 2012-05-14 Letter to Ms Roxon & Mr Snowdon regarding their ongoing breaches of the Model Litigant Policy. 104 "I was sacked for standing up for a mate, former Attorney-General Robert McClelland says", Malcolm Farr, News.com.au, March 2, 2012. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/i-was-cacked-for-standing-up-for-a- mate-former-attorney-general-robert-mcclelland-says/story-e6frfkw9-1226287503531 105 “Last year, the Rule of Law Institute provided former attorney-general Robert McClelland with a series of judgments in which government agencies had been criticised by the judiciary over their conduct in court. // At the time, Mr McClelland said he took breaches of the model litigant rules, which are part of the government's Legal Services Directions, very seriously. // “The Rule of Law Institute had believed there would be a review of the model litigant rules as a result of the material presented to the government last year, Mr Gilbert said.”

“Gillard Government lashed for ‘ignoring’ breaches of Model Litigant rules”, Chris Merritt, The Australian, 2012-04-13. 106 2013-04-04 Letter to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus QC with Code of Conduct complaint against two public servants. (Unanswered) and “Mr. McClelland ordered the OLSC to conduct investigations, including one into Defence. This was assigned to (name of public servant) in the OLSC who, incredibly, told me point-blank she wasn’t going to do it.”

107 Find Law: Do we have the right to freedom of speech in Australia? “Some of us may presume that because we live in a liberal democracy like Australia, certain personal freedoms are a given – like free speech – and that any imposition on a person’s speech would be viewed as an attempt to curtail the freedom. Additionally, we’re going to presume (for the sake of the topic of this piece) that many Australians would be familiar with the US Constitution and specifically the First Amendment which states; “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”, and we’re going to also guess (again for efficacy) that some people may believe that we here in Australia also enjoy a similar type of Constitutional protection: But do we? Well… it must be said that Australia’s free speech laws are interesting to say the least.” http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx

108 Open Letter to Tech Community - Federal Government Corruption - Australia too Dangerous for High-Tech Businesses: Chris Masters and the ABC reported endemic corruption in and spent the next 13 years in court. They won because what they said was true, but Chris Masters has described the great personal financial and emotional toll. (pp. 3) Society can’t treat reporters – or their publishers – like that, and expect them to continue to report corruption.

Compare that to the endemic corruption in NSW: “Defamation and the Australian media: a case study”, Brian Martin, University of Wollongong, October 1997, “Australian defamation law is extremely harsh and hence a major obstacle to free speech. For example, a reviewer of a book about uranium stated ‘‘I object to the author’s lack of moral concern.’’ The author sued and won more than $100,000. Exposure of corruption is very difficult. Sir Robert Askin was premier of New South Wales -- equivalent to the governor of a U.S. state -- for a decade and widely rumored to be involved in organized crime. The threat of defamation suits kept the media muzzled until Askin died in 1981.” http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Martin_def.html

Page 13 of 13 July 11, 2013