Howdy dear availees...ya' know how we here at TMGI have been bangin'-on about some mysterious but allegedly massive issue that we weren't sure how to handle it?...(yes we have been doin' that quite a bit-Ed)...well today any course of action I might have considered, and again, not really any idea what if any 'actions' were exactly ever available to me/us...(which is why we were stuck-Ed)...precisely...well as given away in the title, today Wednesday 10th July 2024 it was reported that ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption) Commissioner Ann Vanstone is quitting...(but why? you may well ask-Ed)...well I've got a fair idea, somewhat given away again in the title of this 'ere post...
So this is gunna' start with 3 specific posts, being this 'ere one what you is readin' right now, and as concurrently posted with 2 others covering the Index of Documents that I provided to MLC (Member Legislative Council - Upper House of Sth Oz Parliament) Frank Pangallo after he contacted me and asked me to help him...but that's gettin' in the cart before we've even shoed the horse, so first things first, here's what my mate Frank...(maaate-Ed)...had to say in the Parliament...(and therefore recorded for posterity in the Hansard, the official Parliamentary record-Ed)...exactly, as said by Frank, Forever On The Public Record...(why have you put capitals on "Forever On The Public Record"?-Ed)...'cos it's a phrase that we're gunna' be usin' alot, and it's an actual thing, this isn't just some inconsequential stuff that was just said wherevs, whatevs, it was in the Parliament and is now therefore FOTPR...
Below here is the link to and a direct cut-'n'-paste from the Hansard of the South Australian Parliament, the Legislative Council, 8th February 2024...***
https://hansardsearch.parliament.sa.gov.au/daily/uh/2024-02-08
The Hon. F. PANGALLO (14:31): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General about the ICAC investigation into John Hanlon.
Leave granted.
The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Today's Advertiser carries a story about ICAC's secret surveillance tapes, made during the bugging of the office of former Renewal SA boss John Hanlon. No secret: they were in the inspector's report tabled last year. The conversations published appear to be another attempt by ICAC, the DPP or the Attorney-General's Department to further smear Mr Hanlon and his former senior colleague Georgina Vasilevski and derail mediation, which is about to start in a civil action by Mr Hanlon. No mention is made anywhere in the article of the most damning findings by the inspector of institutional maladministration by ICAC while he conveniently absolved individuals responsible for the botched investigation.
Only in the last lines is it mentioned that neither Mr Hanlon nor Ms Vasilevski were convicted of any offence and entitled to the presumption of innocence. Neither a court, the inspector nor ICAC have ever seen Mr Hanlon's substantive defence to the charges levelled against him—only the DPP, and when they were viewed they folded. In an obvious plea deal to get something from nothing, former Renewal SA worker Stephanie Hardy pleaded guilty to unlawfully disclosing the ICAC investigation to Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski, which was also caught on the secret surveillance tapes. She was not convicted. She walked away with a $1,000 fine.
So, after a costly exercise leaving ICAC humiliated and facing civil damages, not one person has been or will be convicted of anything. Compare this to a similar matter of Mr Nick Fletcher, a pensioner in the South-East, publishing information about an investigation in an obscure blog in 2013. The definition of 'publish' was so broad that, when Mr Fletcher tried to get clarification, the government of the day instead moved to quickly fix it in 2014, capturing Mr Fletcher's offending retrospectively. No mercy was shown to Mr Fletcher, nor a plea deal. He was convicted and the fine was $500,000—500 times that handed to Ms Hardy, with no conviction. My questions to the Attorney are:
1. Can the Attorney explain the chasm between these two offences, and was he aware of the plea deal?
2. Can he assure the chamber that the timing of the story as mediation begins wasn't the result of tip-offs from either his department, the DPP or ICAC?
The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:34): I thank the honourable member for his question. In relation to a sentence or a fine imposed by a court, as I have answered questions from the opposition before, it is, as it should be, properly a matter for a court.
If a sentence is thought by the prosecuting authority, whether it be the police or the DPP, to be too lenient, there is usually an option to appeal the sentence that is given in a court. If a defendant considers a sentence or a fine manifestly excessive, there is always the possibility that can be appealed in a court as well. I have not taken the habit—and I am not going to start the habit today, I am afraid, Hon. Mr Pangallo—of commenting on why a court imposes a fine within the bounds of what we set down in parliament.
In relation to the honourable member's second part of the question that relates to a story in The Advertiser, I have seen the headlines. I have not read the story myself. I have had no suggestion that anywhere from government had anything to do with the publication of a story at all. The headline is all that I know about that story. I am not aware of any suggestion, apart from what has been raised today in parliament, that there was anything from government that had anything to do with any story in any media right now about the Hanlon case.
***(Strewth!-Ed)...you and me both cobber...as regular availees will have already deduced for y'allselves, mate Frank got that info from the testimony and documents I travelled to Adelaide to personally present to his 'ICAC Harms and Adverse Outcomes' Inquiry, aways back in 2021...(and as posted on this 'ere blog under posts "My ICAC Testimony Parts 1-4"-Ed)...and of course Frank didn't print a single word of my document-supported testimony in his precious Inquiry's Final Report...(but that hasn't stopped him slingin' it about as and when it suits him-Ed)...indeed not, didn't contact me before doing this, didn't contact me afters to just let me know what he'd done...(but I thought you said that he did contact you, asked you to send him stuff, etc?-Ed)...well spotted, 'cos yes maaate Frank did contact me, but only after this (below) happened...
Below is the link to and a cut-'n'-paste copy of ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone's Citizens Right of Reply, as read onto the Hansard on 7th March 2024, and therefore?...(FOTPR?-Ed)...exactly...if ya' wanna know more about what a CRoR is, here's the link, followed by the Hansard link...***
https://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/en/House-of-Assembly/Citizens-Right-of-Reply
https://hansardsearch.parliament.sa.gov.au/daily/uh/2024-03-07
Citizen's Right of Reply
CITIZEN'S RIGHT OF REPLY
The PRESIDENT (17:14): I have to advise that I have received a letter from the Hon. Ann Vanstone KC, Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, requesting a right of reply in accordance with standing order 455A. In her letter dated 28 February 2024, the commissioner considers that she has been adversely affected in her office of Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption by statements made in the Legislative Council by the Hon. F. Pangallo on Thursday 8 February 2024.
Following the procedures set out in the standing order, I have given consideration to this matter and believe that it complies with the requirements of the standing order. Therefore, I grant the request and direct that the commissioner's reply be incorporated in Hansard.
Dear President
Proceedings of the Legislative Council on Thursday, 8 February 2024
I write pursuant to Standing Order 455A of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council, in relation to statements made in the Legislative Council by Mr Frank Pangallo MLC on Thursday 8 February 2024.
Pursuant to Standing Order 455A, I submit that I have been adversely affected in my office of Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and I request that this response be incorporated into Hansard.
Mr Pangallo made an allegation (1) to the effect that an article appearing in The Advertiser on 8 February 2024 regarding the investigation and prosecution of Mr John Hanlon and Ms Georgina Vasilevski was published at the behest of the Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions or staff of the Attorney-General's Department, and that it was done in an effort to damage Mr Hanlon and Ms Vasilevski and, ultimately, to influence the outcome of legal proceedings.
This is a serious allegation to level against statutory office holders and senior public officers utilising the shield of parliamentary privilege. To my knowledge, it is not an allegation that Mr Pangallo has repeated outside of Parliament.
Moreover, the allegation is untrue, certainly insofar as it concerns me or my staff. The article in The Advertiser was published wholly independently of anything done by any person associated with the Commission.
Mr Pangallo went on to make wholly unfounded claims about, in effect, the inequitable treatment of two persons before the courts for the commission of offences against the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Act 2012 (SA) (the ICAC Act).
Mr Pangallo contrasted the penalty imposed on Ms Stephanie Hardy for one count of breaching s 54(3) of the ICAC Act—namely, a $1000 fine—with the penalty imposed on Mr Nick Fletcher for what Mr Pangallo suggested was similar conduct in 2013. Mr Pangallo claimed that Mr Fletcher was 'shown no mercy' by the Commission, fined $500,000 and that, in fact, Mr Fletcher was only charged and found guilty due to changes made to the ICAC Act which resulted in 'capturing Mr Fletcher's offending retrospectively'.
Much of what Mr Pangallo said about the matter involving Mr Fletcher is patently false. First, Mr Pangallo has overlooked the fact that Mr Fletcher was not a public officer and was not investigated by the Commission, and nor did it play any role in his prosecution. Accordingly, the Commission was in no position to show mercy or otherwise to Mr Fletcher.
Secondly, Mr Fletcher was convicted of 22 counts of breaching the provisions of the ICAC Act which prohibit publication rather than simply dissemination of information. This is a more serious offence than that to which Ms Hardy pleaded guilty.
Thirdly, the penalty Mr Fletcher received was in the nature of a community service order and the imposition of prosecution costs, court fees and the victims of crime levy, all of which amounted to less than $3,500—a far cry from the $500,000 fine that Mr Pangallo would have the public and Parliament believe was imposed.
Finally, the amendments made to the definition of 'publish' in the ICAC Act by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2014 to which Mr Pangallo referred had the effect of narrowing rather than broadening the concept of publication. The then Attorney-General, the Hon. John Rau described the effect of the amendments as follows in his second-reading speech (2):
First, the Bill amends the definition of 'publish' because upon a broad interpretation of that definition, information could not be communicated person to person. The intention, which is to prevent information becoming public, will be clarified by the new definition of 'publish', consistent with the definition of 'publish' in the Evidence Act 1929 where the emphasis is on communication to the public.
Mr Fletcher published information relating to an investigation on a public blog. His conduct amounted to unauthorised publication of information both before and after the amendment to the definition of 'publish'.
In my submission, Mr Pangallo's statements regarding the cases involving Ms Hardy and Mr Fletcher amount to a breach of Standing Order 193, being injurious reflections on the Parliament of South Australia and on the courts of law in this State. They have the capacity to damage the public perception of the operation of the legal system and of the Parliament and ought to be corrected.
Yours sincerely,
Hon. Ann Vanstone KC
COMMISSIONER
(1) South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 8 February 2024, 4739 (Frank Pangallo MLC).
(2) South Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Assembly, 29 October 2014, 2489 (John Rau MP).
At 17:15 the council adjourned until Tuesday 19 March 2024 at 14:15.
***(..............-Ed)...I know right?...(......I mean......it......why?-Ed)...mate, ask me a question that answers itself, 'cos I just don't know...(especially the stuff about 'ICAC definitely didn't have anything to do with investigating and/or prosecuting Nick Fletcher'-Ed)...yeah mate, like I said, I dunno' why the Commissioner has come-back so hard about my persecution/prosecution...(it's just so...she names you 11 times...wow and strewth just don't seem adequate-Ed)...and I tell a gentle half-lie, 'cos I do know why, I just don't understand why...(I mean, nowhere has maaate Frank actually accused the ICAC of doing anything to you and/or about you-Ed)...indeed...(in fact, the only one's he's havin' a go at is the government/Labor-Ed)...yep...('they changed the legislation, etc'-Ed)...sure...(and then he mentions the Court stuff, 'no mercy, conviction, fines, etc'-Ed)...keep going, you'll get there...(so why is the Commissioner furiously denying something that she/ICAC has not actually been accused of-Ed)..............(ohhhhhh, the Commissioner is denying an accusation that hasn't been made-Ed)...bingo...
The ICAC Commissioner is furiously denying an accusation that hasn't actually been made.
The classic tell of a guilty mind...I do not know why ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone has felt so driven to deny this accusation that was never made, but I am bewildered as to why she would then choose to make these "wholly unfounded" and "patently false" statements about what ICAC did and/or didn't do...(and not least of all bewildering in that her statements are immediately proven false by the litany of documents, including extensive sections of Trial Testimony, etc, currently already in the hands of Authorities-Ed)...absolutely, that's what's so bizarre, denying an accusation that hasn't been made with lies easily, immediately proven to be "patently false"...
Here's a transcript of what was reported on ABC Radio SE (news service via Adelaide) at 0700hrs 21st March 2024, for some reason 2 weeks after the fact...***
***And maaate Frank did contact me by phone on Friday 8th March and asked that I provide him any documentation in my possession such that he might defend these "patently false" statements by ICAC Comm Vanstone...and we'll get into that in coming posts...
Tomorrow: My 7-page Index For MLC Frank Pangallo
If I had to hazard a guess, and at this stage it is still very much a guess, but I'd reckon that Comm Vanstone has gone to the ICAC filing cabinet and found it to be entirely uncontaminated by any mention of a certain 'Nick Fletcher'...(perhaps it was under 'Mr Bastard'? perhaps she should look there?-Ed)...very amusing I'm sure, but the immediate implications are deeply sinister and massively concerning...
Because at face value, it looks like former ICAC Comm Bruce 'Brews Slander' Lander has conducted a 'Secret Investigation' of a private citizen, moi, a 'Secret Investigation' for which there is no 'official' paperwork...(never was?-Ed)...who knows, whatevs, and then that 'Secret File' has likely gone in maaate Bruce's pocket when he's shot-through...
At face value, it looks like ICAC has done a 'Secret Investigation' of a private citizen...and if ICAC has done this to me, then to how many others?...how many other 'ICAC Secret Files on Private Citizens' existed under maaate Bruce?...(or still exist?-Ed)...indeed, has maaate Bruce passed-on info from his illegal 'Secret Investigations' to others, eg, his politician mates for them to use?...
It's all pointless speculation until ICAC Comm Ann Vanstone is held to account for her extraordinary lies...and I call them lies 'cos I've contacted ICAC Comm Vanstone, twice, and very, very politely pointed-out that she has "Mis-led the Parliament", but she ain't havin' a word of it and, as the title states, has refused to correct her 'lies'...
I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog..cheers and laters...
No comments:
Post a Comment