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 George Brandis (Shadow Attorney-General) [email protected] Industry House Cc: The Hon Joe Hockey MP (Shadow Treasurer) [email protected] 10 Binara Street Cc: Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP (Shadow Innovation) [email protected] Canberra City ACT 2601 Australia Cc: Mr Michael Keenan MP (Shadow Justice) [email protected] Phone: +61 2 6276 1727 Cc: Malcolm Turnbull MP (Shadow Broadband) [email protected] Cc: Bruce Billson 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 Warren Snowdon. 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 the Australian 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 53 out of their own arguments making it easy to buy into Gary Gray’s arguments that one simply isn’t needed.