Menu
Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...

NAB VICTIM

NAB VICTIM

In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next

Members Login

Get Connected!

  • Connect and expand your network
  • View profiles and add new friends
  • Share your photos and videos
  • Create your own group or join others

Groups

No Groups added.

Photos

No public photos available.

Videos

No public videos available.

Recent activities

  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Rocco Arico Sting 2015 Purana' in the forum.
    Bankers for a gangster: Commonwealth lenders help mafia boss do laundry

    By Nick McKenzie, Chris Vedelago & Cameron Houston
    March 30, 2018 — 10.41pm

    Commonwealth Bank loan officers provided millions of dollars in mortgages to Calabrian mafia kingpin Rocco Arico, who used them to amass a luxury property portfolio and launder cash from his drug and extortion empire.
    Current Time 0:11
    /
    Duration 1:36

    Commonwealth lenders giving mafia home loans
    Commonwealth lenders giving mafia home loans

    Commonwealth lenders giving mafia home loans


    Calabrian mafia kingpin Rocco Arico used millions of dollars in mortgages provided by Commonwealth Bank loan officers to launder cash from his drug and extortion empire and amass a luxury property portfolio

    Employees at three of the big four banks, who were either very compliant or possibly corrupt, provided the funds to Arico, who is now serving a 14-year jail sentence for extortion, drug trafficking, violence and weapons offences.
    Mafia figure Rocco Arico.

    Mafia figure Rocco Arico.Credit:Jason South

    <!--ffxnote-->The scam came to light during a police sting in 2015. Arico was recorded in a street-corner conversation telling an underworld associate that certain Commonwealth bankers were willing to write up loans even if the borrower had suspect means of income.


    “I’ll organise it with the banker," Arico was recorded telling his mate. "You come in the Commonwealth Bank, we see Hasan* the bank f---ing guy, give your details, sign the documents, to go for the loan and let me worry about it.”

    “Even better … We go and see Peter*… [he] is a hundred percent. This guy is the best … and whatever he’ll need to do, he’ll do.”

    This week, after The Age began asking questions, Commonwealth Bank suspended the employment of both "Hasan" and "Peter".
    Property dealings

    The recording on the police wire opened a window into how Arico laundered some of the huge amounts of cash spinning from his lucrative drug business. It was all about property.

    This dirty cash to clean asset operation wasn't possible without bankers prepared to write up loans while forgoing due diligence – a scenario the banking royal commission has separately suggested was widespread in sections of the CBA's broker-driven home loan business.

    Arico had relied on friendly bankers at the CBA, ANZ and Westpac to write 14 loans – two of them after his arrest on extortion charges. Asset confiscation detectives traced 12 properties comprising a portfolio worth at least $15 million. Another $11 million worth of bricks and mortar had already been sold off and the funds have either never been accounted for, or were transferred to an Italian bank account in the name of a family member.
    Safety Beach property owned by Rocco Arico.

    Safety Beach property owned by Rocco Arico.Credit:Fairfax Media

    Five properties are currently frozen as potential proceeds of crime.

    Among Arico's portfolio was a luxury home in Sandringham, an apartment in high-rise Eureka Tower, a bathing box on Safety Beach, a townhouse project and several residential development sites. His family home in Moonee Ponds was funded by the methamphetamine trade, and so luxurious that police dubbed it the "Ice Castle".

    Peter, whose real name can't be used for legal reasons, provided Arico a mortgage for his Moonee Ponds palace just a day after Arico was arrested on charges of extortion in 2015. The loan was in the name of an Arico relative, who at the time was not working and was suffering from a serious illness.

    Arico's property wealth was amassed between 2008, when he was released from prison having served sentences for attempted murder and kidnapping, and 2015.
    The beach box.

    The beach box.Credit:Fairfax Media

    The loans were secured with the help of remarkably compliant and possibly corrupt bank staff. The Commonwealth Bank was favoured, and this week, after Fairfax Media began making queries, both CBA staffers Hasan and Peter were suspended.

    But Westpac and ANZ lenders also sought Arico's custom.
    Extortion, trafficking, violence

    Rocco Arico, 39, was the gangster from central casting. Suspected of arranging the prison murder of gangland boss Carl Williams and having ties to the Calabrian mafia, known as ‘Ndrangheta, Arico was sentenced last year to 14 more years prison for extortion, drug trafficking, violence and weapons offences.
    Purana Taskforce detectives bring Victoria's most senior suspected organised crime boss Rocco Arico into custody on March 5, 2015.

    Purana Taskforce detectives bring Victoria's most senior suspected organised crime boss Rocco Arico into custody on March 5, 2015.Credit:Pat Scala

    Prior to that, he could help his friends get access to a banking system not only vulnerable to exploitation, but with at least a small number of staff that encouraged it. The recorded conversation suggests Arico had forged close ties to bank insiders.

    “If you’re fair dinkum about getting a loan, you come to my banker and I’ll get you the loan,” Arico said to a fellow drug trafficker, who was being pressured to take out a loan in his wife’s name to pay off a drug debt he owed Arico.

    “Of course I’m going to come [with you] to the bank,” Arico explained . “Otherwise he’s [the CBA staffer] not going to do nothing for you.”
    Related Article
    Rocco Arico filled Carl Williams' "big man" position in the drug world, reinventing himself as a "property developer" and acquiring a $10 million fortune.
    Conviction of powerful gangster Rocco Arico began with the betrayal of a friend

    When this conversation was recorded, Arico had already emerged as a major player in Melbourne’s drug trade, topping a law enforcement list of the most influential crime figures.

    Arico’s ability to tap into personal mortgage finance sits at the extreme end of a banking business model that has been subject to intense royal commission scrutiny since hearings began this month.

    Among the things being examined is a culture that values outcomes over ethics, and which allegedly allowed, in a separate case, the CBA to facilitate wide scale money laundering via its cash deposit ATM facilities.

    The royal commission has heard evidence that the banks sought to aggressively expand their loan books and often used mortgage brokers for the rougher end of the market. They were given incentives by banks to sign up borrowers less able able to repay loans than those who dealt directly with the bank, ultimately exposing consumers and the banks to risk.

    Arico’s interactions with the CBA were with a small number of full-time staff rather than mortgage brokers, but it was underpinned by the same cavalier attitude to oversight.
    How it worked

    Sources have told Fairfax Media that Arico's operation involved him getting a loan to buy a property, sometimes based on false documentation or in the absence of evidence that he had a legitimate means of repayment. The loans were in the name of Arico himself, or family members, whose main source of income appeared to be a cafe in Lygon Street's Little Italy precinct in Carlton.
    Arico's wife Franki, his mother Antonia and father Antonio.

    Arico's wife Franki, his mother Antonia and father Antonio. Credit:Jason South

    Then the drug trafficker would renovate, refurbish or develop the property, pouring in sometimes millions of dirty dollars to buy top-line fixtures and European appliances, paying tradesmen in cash, making it hard for authorities to track his spending. One beachside property was equipped with a $75,000 sculptural glass elevator.

    Renovation complete, and house value raised, Arico would sell the house, pay out the loan and keep the increase in value – on its face, perfectly clean money.

    Arico’s CBA dealings, while unknown to the royal commission until contacted by Fairfax Media, nevertheless underscore a key focus of the Turnbull government commissioned inquiry: the inability of banks to confront and air their dirty laundry.

    In NSW, policing agencies are examining how notorious crime syndicates, including Australia's most infamous underworld family, have been able to access home loan after home loan, despite their infamy and absence of legitimate income.

    In a case recently scrutinised by police, a criminal syndicate bought outright a now defunct NSW-based franchise of the Bank of Queensland to facilitate money laundering.

    Of the four bankers Arico is suspected of cultivating to write him and his associates home loans, one was pushed out of the bank when the CBA’s internal investigators uncovered fraudulent deals with Arico as far back as 2011.

    But evidence suggests Arico quickly replaced him with others, including the two bankers suspended this week.

    The bank waited until 2016 (after Arico was charged) to brief investigators from the police anti-gang taskforce, Purana, but has, since then, provided limited assistance.

    A Victoria police spokesman declined to comment.

    CBA would also not say if the issue had been disclosed to the Kenneth Hayne led royal commission, which has been agitating that the banks to disclose suspected wrongdoing despite resistance from CBA.

    The CBA declined to comment specifically on the Arico matter, citing privacy reasons.

    “We strive to cooperate with all law enforcement agencies regarding concerns about customers or staff and are committed to assisting with all enquiries or investigations,” a spokesman said.

    Of the bank's suspension this week of Hasan and Peter, the spokesman said that: ''new evidence has been brought to our attention and we have now launched an internal investigation.”

    “Two employees have been stood down from their current duties while the investigation is underway. We continue to cooperate with Victorian Police.”

    Arico was also adept at securing loans from other banks. Westpac underwrote two properties bought by the Arico family in 2012, one of which has since been sold while the other is the subject of a freezing order.

    “Westpac does not have a banking relationship with this customer or his business,” a spokeswoman for the bank said.

    The ANZ wrote three mortgages for Arico’s family, including refinancing the CBA loan on the “ice castle” nearly a year after Arico’s arrest on extortion and drug trafficking charges and in the wake of a blaze in publicity about his position as an underworld crime boss. The home is now frozen as the suspected proceeds of crime.

    Neither Westpac nor ANZ was willing to comment on whether it had contacted law enforcement authorities about potential impropriety by Arico or its staff.

    “While we are unable to comment on individual customers, we take our regulatory obligations seriously as well as any requests we receive from relevant authorities,” an ANZ spokesman said.

    Arico’s solicitor, Anthony Condello, did not respond to a request for comment on behalf of his client. The royal commission, meanwhile, is turning its focus to financial planning and wealth management when it resumes hearings in mid-April.

    * Real name changed for legal reasons



    Nick McKenzie
    Nick McKenzie

    Twitter
    Email

    Nick McKenzie is an investigative reporter for The Age. He's won seven Walkley awards and covers politics, business, foreign affairs and defence, human rights issues, the criminal justice system and social affairs.
    Chris Vedelago
    Chris Vedelago


    Chris Vedelago is an investigations reporter for The Age with a special interest in crime and justice.
    Cameron Houston
    Cameron Houston

    Email

    Senior Crime Reporter

    Read More...
    2 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Bank Special Prosecutions Unit' in the forum.
    Labor commits fully to Hayne,

    flags special prosecutions unit.



    "I'm not foreshadowing major law reform without further consultation. Commissioner Hayne has asked us to have a conversation about complexity, about carve outs, about whether the law clearly reflects community intent, about whether our regulators are capable of doing what we are asking of them.

    "That is a conversation we are up for."

    Until now, Labor has pledged full support for a handful of recommendations and declared only "in-principle" support for the rest.

    Ms O'Neil will today promise that Labor, if elected, will implement 75 in full as recommended by Commissioner Hayne.

    Like the government, Labor has baulked at the recommendation to make the borrower, not the lender, pay upfront fees to mortgage brokers. Instead, Labor will limit the upfront fees to 1.1 per cent of the draw down component of the loan.

    "But for the rest of the recommendations, Labor will fully implement them," she will say.

    Labor has also proposed measures beyond Hayne, such as a boosted compensation scheme and a new bank tax to fund financial counsellors and domestic violence assistance. It has also defied Hayne by allowing its compensation scheme to look at previously settled cases.

    The government has issued its response to all recommendations but in about a dozen cases, the support has been qualified. It has also resisted a push by Labor to start legislating change before the election, saying the bulk of the 40 recommendations, which require legislation, should be done later in the year.

    Ms Neil will warn that unless the recommendations are implemented as quickly as possible, "we're showing the community that we are happy to ignore their incandescent rage at some of the conduct, which has been uncovered.

    "The public are not going to forget. They are just going to get more angry."

    Ms O'Neil will also say cultural change and restoring integrity are as important as law reform because changing laws cannot solve "all the problems we are concerned with".

    She will accuse the government of "simply sowing the seeds for the next royal commission" by dragging its feet. And there are more dire consequences if trust in banks, politics and other institutions continues to erode.

    "To not respond - or to squib the response, as I think the government has done - is an option that leads us down a path towards Trumpism, and Brexit. That is where the public go when the institutions they are asking to change refuse to do so.

    "One of our bad habits in Australia is assuming that what is happening here is unique. And it's not. Financial institutions are facing similar issues in many countries around the world."
    Last modified on Tuesday, 19 March 2019

    Read More...
    3 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Jeannie Pakula's case with Suzi Burge' in the forum.
    Meeting with CBA 1st of March 2019

    Catherine states: in the first instance I am sorry that there was maladministration, but what we did was complied with the FOS determination and we have put you back to the position that you would have been in......

    Me: Choked on my own saliva...

    Catherine states: I understand that the problem started with maladministration and we're really sorry for that and we shouldn't have got it wrong, so what we did was agreed with the FOS determination......

    Me: Chocked on my own saliva again.....

    Catherine states: What has happened to you in the first place, shouldn't have happened and we TRIED to fix it....

    Well this is a major confession of a banker if ever I saw one..

    My question is...if FOS got it wrong and their determination was never binding on me... letter from Treasury and a legal firm..... and I signed the determination 'under duress' and didn't date the document...... where does that leave everyone including the Courts... who could have and should have made a fair and reasonable determination in this matter....

    AHHHH... 50 shades of Gray? or just plain BLACK and BLOODY WHITE!

    Read More...
    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Link to Comyn's evidence re Model Litigants' in the forum.
    The good doctor says Matt Comyn said the banks weren't model litigants. www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Co...iew5/Public_Hearings

    Read More...
    2 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Pell: Church sacked whistleblowers?' in the forum.
    ExclusiveNationalVictoriaPell verdict

    Church knew Pell was at centre of decades-old lurid sex claims
    Barney Zwartz
    By Barney Zwartz
    March 7, 2019 — 11.55am

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    The claims were lurid and unverified so Helen Last, the counsellor hired by the Catholic Church in Melbourne to assist victims of clerical abuse, agonised before reporting them to her superiors.

    It was 1996 and the newly appointed archbishop, George Pell, had just set up the Melbourne Response to handle the rising numbers of sex abuse claims received by the archdiocese.
    Cardinal George Pell leaving the County Court last week.

    Cardinal George Pell leaving the County Court last week.Credit:Justin McManus

    An ex-seminarian known as ‘‘Joe’’ came forward alleging that Pell and several other priests had, 10 to 15 years earlier, been having sex with Mannix College trainee clerics at ‘‘parties … involving young men’’.

    Joe was not a strong witness. He wanted $20,000 for compromising photographs which appeared to be of Pell and others engaged in sexual acts but could not produce the negatives. Despite this, Ms Last felt she could not dismiss Joe's allegations.
    Advertisement
    Related Article
    11/12/18 Cardinal George Pell leaves the County Court after being found guilty of sexually assaulting two choirboys in 1996 in Melbourne on 11 December 2018. Photograph by Chris Hopkins
    Catholic church
    'Grievously wounded': Archbishops tackle Pell child-sex abuse conviction at Sunday mass

    She reported the claims to her superior and also to the vicar-general, Monsignor Gerald Cudmore (who died in 2007).

    ‘‘He was shocked, and said ‘we have to do something’,’’ she said.

    Ms Last says she developed suspicions about Pell very early during her work with the Archdiocese of Melbourne.

    She heard many stories from victims of clergy sexual abuse in different parishes, especially that Pell knew what was happening and was protecting priests who were abusing children.

    ‘‘It was alleged to me early that Pell was among a group of offenders from Ballarat to Melbourne. They were part of the Ballarat organised clerical offending, which extended down to Laverton and around Melbourne.’’

    While the credibility of the claims made by ‘‘Joe’’ was never substantiated, a detailed memo of the ex-seminarian’s allegations, seen by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, demonstrates that the church was aware of complaints about Pell’s character dating back more than 20 years.
    Helen Last says she had suspicions about George Pell for years.

    Helen Last says she had suspicions about George Pell for years.Credit:Paul Jeffers

    In the light of Pell’s conviction for sexual abuse of two choirboys in 1996, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald believe there is public interest in revealing the trail of complaints that have dogged the cardinal’s career.

    If the ex-seminarian’s claims are included, there are nine known allegations about sexual misconduct against Pell, ranging from exposure to assault, although only two – his sexual abuse of the choirboys – have been upheld by a court.

    Rumours have surrounded the cardinal, especially among survivors of abuse and their advocates, for many years. Some of the allegations might seem preposterous at first but the same argument was made by some about the choirboy's claim that he and another boy were assaulted more than 20 years ago. This makes the other allegations more relevant.

    Ms Last’s contract was terminated in May 1997 as a result, she claims, of her defying explicit instructions from archbishop Pell and then vicar-general Denis Hart to stay away from the Doveton parish, which suffered six paedophiles in succession as parish priest or assistant priest.
    Current Time 4:23
    /
    Duration 9:19

    George Pell's police interview video [excerpt]

    George Pell's police interview video [excerpt]

    Hayley - People told me 'you had no right'

    George Pell's police interview video [excerpt]

    The County Court has released the video of the cardinal’s interview conducted by Victorian police in Rome on October 19, 2016. This is an excerpt of the 42-minute interview.
    Hayley - People told me 'you had no right'
    0.48
    Up next
    Hayley - People told me 'you had no right'
    Rose - He was 'sort of proud that I'd tracked him down'
    0.59
    Rose - He was 'sort of proud that I'd tracked him down'
    Learn to save lives this summer
    1.26
    Learn to save lives this summer
    'He's taken my son away': Pell's victim's father speaks out
    5.45
    'He's taken my son away': Pell's victim's father speaks out
    More women are taking up self defence
    2.32
    More women are taking up self defence
    Boy and woman bitten by dingo on Fraser Island
    0.23
    Boy and woman bitten by dingo on Fraser Island

    One Doveton priest was the deranged Peter Searson, who wandered the Catholic school in military clothing, sometimes carried a gun, stabbed a bird with a screwdriver and tortured a cat. He was also molesting many children.

    A teacher at the time, Carmel Rafferty – whose attempts at whistle-blowing ended her career in Catholic education – said a delegation went to Pell, Searson’s bishop, to share their concerns, but these were dismissed. Pell told the royal commission that this was because he was deceived by archbishop Frank Little and the education office.

    After she was sacked and the pastoral response office closed, Ms Last set up In Good Faith and Associates to support survivors. She also set up the Melbourne Victims’ Collective, which has 120 members who complain they were traumatised by the Melbourne Response.

    ‘‘I believe Pell set up the Melbourne Response partly to protect himself. I believed that from the beginning ... He had no understanding of victim care,’’ she says.
    Melbourne Archbishop Peter A. Comensoli.

    Melbourne Archbishop Peter A. Comensoli.Credit:AAP

    Ms Last believes the Melbourne Response files should be subpoenaed and the decision in each case examined.

    In 2015 she submitted her correspondence with the church over the Joe memo to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

    It is believed that ‘‘Joe’’ has not pursued the matter. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have been unable to contact him.

    The new Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter A. Comensoli, says he does not know of any other historic accusations from Pell’s time in Melbourne, apart from those that had already been before the court.

    ‘‘No. Only the Ballarat one and the trial’s not going ahead. There’s nothing in his files, and our files stop with when he finished up here.’’

    However, correspondence seen by this masthead shows that the independent commissioner, Peter O’Callaghan, QC, investigated the seminary allegations, asking Ms Last to send him ‘‘the remainder of your files … as quickly as possible.’’

    Approached last week, Mr O’Callaghan said that because the matter of Pell remains before the courts, ‘‘I must not and will not make any comments on the matters you raised.’’

    Pell, who is to be sentenced next week, maintains his innocence of all claims and will appeal his conviction of sexually assaulting the two choirboys at a hearing set down for June 5 and 6.

    One of the three men who have claimed Pell touched them improperly in Ballarat swimming pools in the 1970s intends to sue the cardinal for damages, and the other two are expected to give evidence in that case.

    The ‘‘swimming pool’’ trial did not go ahead after the judge ruled certain evidence was inadmissible.

    Then there is the allegation that Pell fondled a boy at a camp at Phillip Island in 1961. In his 2002 investigation on behalf of the Sydney archdiocese, retired Supreme Court judge Alec Southwell found both the boy, Phil Scott, and Pell to be credible witnesses. He also found the complaint could not be established.

    In 2016, Torquay resident Les Tyack went public with allegations he submitted to the royal commission and to the police that he saw Pell expose himself for many minutes to three boys at the local surf life saving club in the 1980s.
    George Pell outside St Patrick's Cathedral in 1998.

    George Pell outside St Patrick's Cathedral in 1998.Credit:Joe Castro

    In the pre-trial hearing for the second Pell trial, which was eventually abandoned, the prosecutors outlined claims from a Victorian man who told police that in 1975 or 1976, when he was 10, he slipped off Pell’s shoulders while playing in a lake near Swan Hill and made accidental contact with the priest’s erect penis. Pell was alleged to have told the boy: ‘‘Don’t worry, it’s only natural.’’

    The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald have been told other allegations have been made to the royal commission, but the commission will not release its own findings about George Pell until the appeal against his conviction has been heard.

    Read More...
    2 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' FOS, The Doom Loop & Mental Health' in the forum.
    www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/001...11-mental-health.pdf

    Supportive Residents and Carers Action Group Inc

    SUBMISSION TO THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION INQUIRY INTO
    MENTAL HEALTH



    About us:
    Our Association is under the patronage of a medical practitioner who was formerly a chair of the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission’s predecessor.
    Our Association registers Whistleblowers with international law enforcement regulators such as the American SEC Office of the Whistleblower Program.
    Our colleagues in California and Nevada in Maverick Ministries were published by the US Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division review on international cooperation between international law enforcement agencies in a climate where Whistleblowers tend to be vilified and victimised and discredited including by psychiatrists in Melbourne who ended up being investigated by the Victorian Ombudsman and now by Worksafe’s Independent Medical Examiner Review.
    Our spokesman has appeared on ABC TV business programs relating to the Royal Commission into banking and insurance scandals.
    Our committee member and others have, alone or with politicians, appeared on television shows such as 60 Minutes’ series on farm suicides/ANZ Landmark where the CEO of the ANZ apologised to the 85 year old farmer three years before the ANZ official was questioned about the scandal at the Royal Commission.
    Our Association is one of the submitters that is referred to in footnote 372 of the Judgement of Victorian Supreme Court in “Commonwealth DPP v Brady & Others”, which was the international bribery case which involved officials in the Reserve Bank’s subsidiaries where those submissions properly reflect the same conclusion reached by Her Honour and expressed by US SEC Director of Foreign Corrupt Practices about the unfathomable light-on investigations by Australian law enforcement compared to investigations by international law enforcement agencies.
    Our Association lobbied extensively for the Royal Commission into Australian banking in part due to the massive number of suicides by farmers who had lost all hope.
    Our Association was published by the FSI Review into Australian banking problems which blossomed into the Royal Commission.
    Our members have been published at the Banking Royal Commission, the Whistleblower Inquiry initiated by Independent Senators and many other Inquiries.
    Our Association was formed in the late 1990s in response to Victorian State Government passing laws that rendered low care shared accommodation facilities financially unviable to keep intellectually challenged and brain-injured people under a roof with 3 meals and medication and washing dressing showering and bathing under the supervision of retired nurses.

    Gas lighting:
    Gas Lighters are mentally ill officials often in positions of power who seem to delight in employing a bullying tactic which belittles their victims. In our experience with numerous cases at the Financial Ombudsman Service it took a Royal Commission to uncover that FOS had arbitrarily decided (possibly at the instigation of officials in a bank with support from officials in ASIC) to ignore one of their Terms of Reference which would allow predatory loans to be written off. You are welcome to cross-reference the evidence at the Royal Commission of their lead Ombudsman.
    Hapless victims seemed incredibly traumatised when they know that the FOS has the power to return them to the original position they would have been in if they had never stepped into the bank, and the bank Ombudsman service mis-portrayed itself as independent and mis-portrayed itself as an Ombudsman whereas it turns out it is an arbitration scheme controlled by the banks and which arbitrarily decided to stop writing off predatory loans.
    There will be many instances like this in many bureaucracies where the so-called helpful staff have hidden agendas.
    Many stories abound for example about the Robocop at Centrelink issuing arbitrary and false demands for repayment of fictional debt.
    The powerless invariably suffer mental health consequences, and one has to query whether mentally ill senior management come up with these ideas because senior management suffers mental illness themselves.
    In the workers compensation field, we would specifically refer your attention to the entire report by the Victorian Ombudsman in September 2016 which reflects the alarming revelations of CBA Whistleblowers which featured on Four Corners regarding the Commonwealth Bank insurance scandal and falsification of medical records. The emails that featured on 4 Corners are appended.
    Also appended are extracts from another CBA Whistleblower that appeared in Fairfax Newspapers and the Submission at Parliament where the Whistleblower states that a psychiatrist told him of concerns about being shot. The Submission refers to the stress the CBA Whistleblowers were under, one dying reputedly from stress at age 34 in his bed.
    Other examples are cited as Fraud on the Court in the litigation field. In other words, are the mentally ill running the asylum? The cost to the economy must be monumental.
    Victorian Ombudsman’s investigation into faux-independent expert psychiatrists:
    The productivity commission will undoubtedly be aware of the concept of doctor shopping.
    Over November 2015 until September 2016 the Victorian Ombudsman found that some Independent Medical Examiners would appease their instructors from insurance companies and law firms by ignoring overwhelming evidence.
    Victims would be traumatised all over again.
    Many victims were police and ambulance professionals.
    In July 2018 the Victorian Ombudsman required Worksafe to go through their faux-independent medical experts with the benefit of internal emails where instructors boasted about reaching targets and earning bonuses while, of course, throwing their bully victims under a bus.
    The productivity commission might like to contact Worksafe Victoria and/or the Victorian Ombudsman for further information.
    Financial Ombudsman Service:
    In the middle of 2014 our association’s concerns about the bank -controlled Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) were release by the FSI Review.
    We posed the question How Much Evidence of Illegality On the Part of Australian Banks Does FOS Require?.
    The same set of facts were submitted to US law enforcement, and the US Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force found Reserve Bank of Australia documents were being passed through criminal networks to lawyers for credit card companies in circumstances that were so egregious and unethical that they were cited by US DOJ Prosecutors in the sentencing memorandum on the lawyer in New Jersey and by US Judges and the New York Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee.
    In a nutshell, in the USA is unethical for criminals to collude over international bank evidence in bank cases against class-action retail stores. FOS and the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commission remarkably could not see what bank victims and US law enforcement could see.
    In our experience from being inundated with elderly victims of predatory banking who were victims of FOS’ refusal to return people to their original position, e.g. by cancelling predatory loans, it is quite disgusting to think that it took a Royal Commission and hundreds or thousands of farm suicides to get the powers-that-be questioned by the Royal Commission into Banking & Insurance.
    The mental health consequences of institutionalised wilful blindness must be staggering on the entire economy.
    The Culture of Cover-Up: Re-traumatizing victims.
    Our Members and their affiliates in various associations attended rallies at Parliament and the Royal Commission into banking.
    We believe that prevention is best, and we note for example that the Queensland Inquiry into Organized Crime in October 2015 found that the number of fraud squad police could be counted on one hand, and were greatly under resourced and unable to deal with the epidemic of bank fraud, child exploitation and organized crime and boiler room fraud operations. Traumatic Crime and corruption can bloom like a toxic bloom in a swamp.
    The Productivity Commission should, we believe, recommend that whistleblowers services be funded so that the culture of cover-up is washed away.
    Royal Commission into Abuse in Church Institutions, and the Pennsylvanian Grand Jury into Paedophile Priests:
    The most senior levels of the church, apparently including the Vatican, maintained locked records of extensive Child abuse over many decades.
    During the investigations, US law enforcement found that psychiatrists were used to discredit victims.
    We believe the same practices were employed in Australia.
    “The Doom Loop”:
    We concur with our colleagues at the Banking & Finance Consumer Support Association who describe a ‘doom loop’. Complaints to bank regulators etc received letters that said the regulators couldn’t see any banking crimes. However the head lobbyist at the Bankers Association has stated in the newspapers that bankers fear that the Bank Royal Commission will recommend criminal charges be laid against banks or bankers. Victims feel traumatised at being fobbed off, ignored, labelled as nutters, and destroyed. They wouldn’t be traumatised if the law had been enforced.

    Conclusion:
    We are very concerned with so-called independent medical experts in Melbourne who were found to be not independent and little better than hired guns for very questionable people in the insurance and legal industry.
    Yours faithfully
    Wayne Styles and Spencer Murray
    Committee,
    Supportive Residents & Carers
    Action Group Inc.














    EXTRACTS FROM THE VICTORIAN OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION INTO MELBOURNE’S ‘INDEPENDENT’ MEDICAL EXAMINERS
    .



    EXTRACTS FROM FAIRFAX/
    4 CORNERS’ STORY ON COMMINSURE

    Email as published on 4 Corners’ episode:






    Email as published on 4 Corners’ episode on CommInsure:

    Extract of CBA Whistleblower’s Submission to the Whistleblower Protection Inquiry re traumatic alteration of evidence

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • www.usfn.org/blogpost/1296766/296813/Fra...ript-from-California


    Fraud Scheme Impacting Title — Postscript from California
    Posted By USFN, Thursday, February 1, 2018
    Updated: Friday, March 16, 2018

    February 1, 2018

    by Abe Salen
    The Wolf Firm
    USFN Member (CA)

    Fraud has consistently been a silent sword used by borrowers and their agents to stall the foreclosure process and keep the non-paying borrower in the property.

    Over the last 18 months, a grand scheme has been uncovered by both federal and state law enforcement in which the borrower is generally a non-participant. Rather, the perpetrating entity conducts a public or semi-private search for properties with loans in foreclosure — often properties that have been in foreclosure for some time (several months to multiple years), but with no record of a sale having occurred. The scheme has reached significant levels in California.

    The process is this: once the property is identified, the perpetrating entity begins its fraudulent scheme by recording a bogus assignment. That same day, this entity substitutes in a subsidiary as the foreclosing trustee. Thereafter the “new” trustee immediately (often within 1-3 days) records a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, transferring the property to the fraudulent beneficiary. With a recorded transfer in hand, the perpetrating entity sends out private invitations to known REO investors seeking bids for the purchase (at pennies on the dollar) of the subject property. This scheme is “grand” because it encompasses several hundred properties throughout California, with many more suspected — including properties throughout the West Coast and neighboring states, and eastward.

    The problems are clear. With the fraudulent recordings occurring so quickly, it may be difficult for servicers and trustees to become aware of the fraudulent cloud on title until a bona fide purchaser is in the mix. Several title companies are now aware of this particular scheme. Further, at least one county has filed criminal charges against the perpetrating entities, with several more jurisdictions conducting in-depth investigations. The FBI is also investigating, and this scheme has gained the attention of numerous media outlets throughout the country.

    This situation provides a serious reminder that servicers/trustees must stay vigilant in their due diligence as they begin the foreclosure process, and ensure that the title searches remain current throughout the process. Updating title reports at regular intervals during the process is recommended, especially when files are placed on hold, in order to confirm that title remains unaffected — not just from borrower conduct but also from possible third-party perpetrators.

    Copyright © 2018 USFN. All rights reserved.
    Winter USFN Report

    Note for consideration of the USFN Award of Excellence: This article is not a "Feature."

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Attachments to Sub1 Justice Inquiry' in the forum.
    Attachments in support of submission 1 to the Senate Inquiry into Dispute Resolution in the Justice System:


    FOS needs to be examined by a Royal Commission into its entire operations: Senators.





    FOS’ legal counsel said to see the police: we went to the FBI & SEC and US Federal Reserve Bank:



    Inadequate Discovery conceals crime: we support an Australian equivalent of the US’ CFPB:









    Ombudsman advises customers in the SEC Whistleblowers who went to FOS NAB CBA Auckland Savings Bank and the Legal Ethics Board that there may be “corrupt conduct” in leaked intentions to “lean” of possible prosecution witnesses in international investigations. Victims of the Culture of Cover Up seek all types of compensatory damages, including for the infliction of mental illness from the “Deny Until they Die” tactics.



    Sample FBI counterterrorism and national security report form to report to the International corruption unit of the FBI: “I thought they were insane”, says Mr Elliot Sgargetta, “but everything they said about the FBI must be true. The hush up deed was worth around $1,000,000 but it looked unethical and possibly illegal”.






    Real task forces:






    Fraud Mistake and Unconscionable Conduct:
    Should rules of evidence and rules of procedure be brought into line with the community’s idea of what is required to void transactions based on, for example, mortgage fraud rings like that in the R v Jordanou proceedings that Bill Shorten and Claire O’Neil covered in their video of victims of the racket?



    Reinstate Grand Juries?
    Should grand juries be reinstated in light of findings that law enforcement and regulators failed to investigate systemic bank crimes? In Victoria it seems that the State Government abolished grand juries 30 years ago which seems to coincide with that described by many as a protection racket for the banks.


    Customers and ‘whistleblower protection’ groups etc should get compensation for reporting tip offs from officials, like the legal ethics board staff who were appalled at what the bank law firms got away with.















    Royal Commissioner Hayne’ observations about systemic problems with FOS et al:







    Former Victorian Premier John Cain’s letter to the editor complaining about the CBA Open Review Scheme in 2015: can banks be trusted to run their own dispute resolution scheme?


    Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser’s letter regarding the CBA Open Review Scheme: can banks be trusted to handle their own dispute resolution scheme?



    Senator Williams’ questioning of ASIC about an army of lawyers and receivers charging over $462,000 over an alleged debt of $28,000. If the lawyers and receivers are officers of the court, do ethics obligations prevent overkill? Have courts allowed overrepresentation that ultimately “uses the shareholders cheque book” to enrich officers of the court and to assuage the egos of corporate bullies? It is submitted that policymakers regulators and the legal system were part of a culture of cover-up and denials and cost-cutting that inflicted psychiatric injury which should be retrospectively compensated by policymakers regulators and the legal system.




    Headline in Chinese international news regarding the falsified file notes prepared by the lawyer for FOS whose roles include positions on esteemed boards that advise government in banking matters. It is submitted that all FOS decisions should be retrospectively reopened, assessed by a board which includes community-based advisors, with the outcome adding compensation for all manner of damages including psychiatric damage which follows on from having to deal with concealment of evidence and blocking tactics. It is also submitted that, given that FOS staff worked for financial institutions that are being referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and may have engaged in cartel like conduct, that a genuinely independent dispute resolution scheme not employ those who may have been involved in cartel -like criminal activity.






    Are small law firms intimidated by banks and by legal ethics boards? Attached is the Letter from the CBA lawyers to Ms Suzi Burge’s lawyer threatening referral to legal ethics board’s and threatening adverse costs orders against her and her lawyer in the event that the court did not see fraud misrepresentation mistaken unconscionable conduct. Ms Burge maintains that her own barrister (who presumably is subject to the same ethics and cost consequences) pressured her to sign a settlement, and she maintains that the Court was advised by the CBA barrister that her defences were likely to succeed however the Court directed her, being a homeless and impoverished mother, to raise her defences in another Court with the result that the property was foreclosed on.


    Letter to Ms Burge and CBA’s Secretary/Lawyer David Cohen from the Banking Oath: are bank lawyers dismissive of their legal ethical obligation to resolve disputes early and without recourse to litigation that financially benefits law firms connected to FOS?










    Screenshot from Senator Dastyari’s examination of claims that CBA was involved in FOS’ decision, as confirmed in questioning lead Ombudsman Mr Phillip Field at the Hayne Royal Commission, that FOS decided to not use its powers to forgive/cancel loans in their entirety.

    Is FOS an arbitration scheme that was devised by lawyers and bankers and funded by bankers and staffed by bankers to look like a truly independent government Ombudsman scheme? Were arbitration clauses disguised to look like a Royal Commission’s terms of reference rather than being put to the public as a bank-operated arbitration scheme controlled by banks? Was FOS part of a cartel-like operation under a board of directors and lawyers at the centre of the problems that the Hayne Royal Commission touched on?

    Are arbitrators liable in Australia like elsewhere if they watered-down criminal activity to something called maladministration and refused to investigate allegations of criminal a ctivity?



    Are FOS arbitrators exposed to prosecution in foreign jurisdictions if FOS is seen to be a biased pro-bank contrivance that conceals criminal activity?









    Are arbitrators and their associates liable as a cartel -like operation?




    Should victim of crimes schemes get compensation for victims? Banks claim to be the victim of crimes, however the defrauded customers never see a cent.





    Given the lawsuit by US pension funds against the CBA for concealment of its role in transferring funds for Al Qaeda and international organized criminal organisations, can Australian bankers face US charges for racketeering as ventilated by customers of the Legal Services Board and Commission under APRA and under directors from the CBA’s audit firm or counterterrorism and anti-money laundering?


    Do crime rings enlist the services of the legal services board to obtain files from lawyers who act for investigative reporters who, coincidentally, are subject to repossession proceedings by the same bank that was lending money to convicted underworld figures?





    Compensation should be paid for psychiatric illnesses, stress, lost opportunities etc that flow from “misunderstanding” cases and employing the “Deny Deceive & Lie Til They Die” to induce PTSD and a sense of hopelessness and doom.

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Pell, by abuse survivor John Ellis' in the forum.
    History will judge George Pell, the cardinal who sought to crush me

    This is your last free article for this month

    Get the answers that matter from $3.50 per week.
    Find out more
    Already subscribed? Log in
    By John Ellis
    February 28, 2019 — 12.00am

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    View all comments

    I have hesitated in weighing in to add to the thousands of words written this week about the publication, at long last, of the details of the conviction of George Pell last December on child sex abuse charges.

    It may surprise many to know that I have not followed the criminal process at all, know few details of it (even now), and have no opinion as to what may or may not happen in the balance of that criminal process.
    George Pell arrives at the County Court in Melbourne on Wednesday.

    George Pell arrives at the County Court in Melbourne on Wednesday.Credit:Justin McManus

    However, as a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest over a period of more than 12 years, and having faced myself the opinion apparently held by those close to George Pell (and perhaps by Pell himself) – as to how inherently unlikely it was that a holy monk of God would have so openly engaged in such debased and abhorrent acts against a young boy – I feel saddened that the experiences of the complainant have been so disrespected by many commentators who feel the need to express doubt over what a jury of 12 has been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

    George Pell apologised to me for the legal abuse perpetrated by the church under his watch as Archbishop of Sydney. Before he departed for Rome in 2014, he famously recited a public apology not to me but to the assembled audience at the conclusion of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse public hearing. I had a cup of tea with him. While that was a private meeting and will remain so, I can say that I have never felt any warmth from the man. I was not left with a sense of any acceptance of personal responsibility for how he sought to crush me or any appreciation of the impacts of his own actions.
    Advertisement

    We have a criminal justice process. That process rightly respects the unimaginable courage that a survivor of child sexual abuse must summon to participate in the process and the enormous personal cost of doing so, both to the survivor and his or her family. These are magnified exponentially when the perpetrator is a high-profile person.
    Sexual abuse survivor John Ellis.

    Sexual abuse survivor John Ellis.Credit:Louise Kennerley

    In return, the criminal justice system provides protection to the anonymity of the survivor and ensures that the truth of their evidence will not be determined in the court of public opinion. The community should respect this and not question what they have not lived through.
    Related Article
    A plaque featuring Cardinal George Pell at Saint Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney.
    Pell Verdict
    'No reason to change arrangements': St Mary's Cathedral defends decision to keep George Pell plaque

    Unavoidably, this is big news. George Pell has been a controversial figure for decades and has been a staunch defender of the church. He has repeatedly touted his credentials as a person to whom sexual abuse of minors is an abhorrent scourge on the church. He has done so as a cover to seek to divert attention away from his record as a man who has waged a covert war on victims and survivors of abuse and who orchestrated the church’s defence to my claim – the "Ellis defence", by which I was figuratively hung, drawn and quartered and displayed as a warning to any other survivor who may have the temerity to seek to sue the church. It claimed there was "no legal entity responsible for sexual abuse in the Catholic Church".

    Pell has been in a position to commit the church to openness, transparency and accountability to the victims and survivors of abuse, to their families, to the faithful of the Catholic Church and to the tens of thousands of people in the wider community who have been affected in some way by the unbridled abuse of minors by Catholic clergy, which could only have persisted and flourished by protection from the upper echelons of the church.

    As such, he has courted publicity. He will be judged ultimately in the court of public opinion, whatever the outcome of the processes still to ensue in the civil courts. He will deserve his fate. His defenders will maintain their outrage and lament the "anti-Catholic forces" and the "conspirators" who have led to his downfall.

    His detractors will focus not so much on whether his conviction stands or the details of what happened in St Patrick’s Cathedral in 1996, but rather on what he has been as a leader of the Catholic Church and how he has affected their life or the lives of their loved ones.

    George Pell will be judged by history. Has he lived honourably and compassionately? Has he been humble and merciful? Has any life breathed easier because of his conduct as a priest, archbishop, cardinal or senior Vatican bureaucrat? Did his war on victims and survivors of abuse make the church better, or has George Pell been one of the Catholic Church’s own worst enemies?

    John Ellis is a Sydney lawyer and the survivor of a priest's sexual abuse.

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Downer Papadoplous and Clinton' in the forum.
    Deep State Downer, the Foreign Minister, the PM — and the Clinton campaign
    David Long

    David Long

    25 September 2018

    6:54 AM

    If there is one thing that a variety of media provides, it is diversity of detail and greater transparency. That is no where more evident than in the United States where it now appears that the Department of Justice and the FBI conspired to protect Hillary Clinton from the worst excesses of her period of time as Secretary of State and that they actively conspired with Hillary’s campaign team to fabricate a case of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government that would justify the appointment of a special counsel investigation.

    Had Hillary been elected President of the United States, she would have used her powers in conjunction with the carry-over Administration from the Obama presidency, in order to bury her and the department officials’ illegalities where they would never have been found.

    Trump’s victory, as you would know from the most cursory reading, did not and still does not assure him of the office given the poison that has been spread. But if you were an American, you would thank God for the diversity of media in that country and the free-speech, First Amendment, for smaller media players such as Breitbart, The Federalist, Fox News and Real Clear Politics have managed to hold the fake news media, CNN, The Washington Post and the New York Times to account for their Democrat bias and willingness to tell lies for the cause.

    It is quite clear now that associates of the Clintons sought to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign by arranging a meeting with some Russians on the pretext that they held information that the Russian government had gathered on Hillary Clinton. The name that suddenly pops into view, however, is one, Alexander Downer. As the Australian High Commissioner in London, he would seem to be a most unlikely source of information on which the FBI could act.

    That is until it is remembered that Downer has very close connections with Bill and Hillary from his days as Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs. It was in that capacity that Downer persuaded the Commonwealth to pay $A25 million into the Bill Clinton foundation, ostensibly to fight AIDS in South East Asia.

    As last reported, Downer met in London with a member of Trump’s campaign team, one George Papadopoulos. As a result of that meeting, information was passed to the FBI which caused that organisation to commence an investigation of possible collusions between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. One question that needs to be asked is why was Downer involved at all? As yet, there is no answer to that question; although we can speculate. And some of the reporting at the time casts a little more light on the question.

    Bear in mind that Alexander Downer met George Papadopoulos in London on May 10 2016, before the 2016 Presidential election; David Wroe of Fairfax reported in a Downer-friendly manner on January 5 2018, that:

    A woman in London with whom Papadopoulos became involved happened to know Alexander Downer and told the Australian High Commissioner about Papadopoulos, a newly signed staffer for Donald Trump. Downer, being a canny diplomat, followed it up and arranged a meeting with the young American, who was mostly living in London at the time. What followed was the now infamous May 2016 conversation over many glasses of wine at the swanky Kensington Wine Rooms, during which the 28-year-old Papadopoulos spilled to Downer that he knew of a Russian dirt file on the rival Clinton campaign consisting of thousands of hacked emails.

    Note that there were ‘many glasses of wine’ consumed, yet the identity of the woman who supposedly initiated the meeting remained pretty much unknown; at least until April 28, 2018, when Downer chose to give an interview to Jacquelin Magnay of the Weekend Australian who reported as follows:

    Downer spoke for the first time about his conversation with the Trump campaign aide and how Papadopoulos let slip his knowledge of a Russian “dirt file” on Hillary Clinton. He relates that accompanied by Erika Thompson, a counsellor at the high commission, late one afternoon in May 2016: “Downer met George Papadopoulos, then an adviser in Donald Trump’s campaign team. Within 48 hours Downer had sent an official cable about what he had heard to Canberra. After a period of time, Australia’s ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey … This eventually led to the inquiry into Russian collusion in the election headed by FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller.

    Magnay contradicts Roe: Downer, Thompson and Papadopoulos only had a single, 25 ml drink of gin, presumably one each. The alcohol consumption was confirmed on or about September 23, 2018, in a Their ABC report by Andrew Probyn and Matthew Doran. They also outline the role played by ‘political counsellor’ Erika Thompson. Thompson and Papadopoulos according to the story had a common acquaintance, one, Christian Cantor a counsellor at the Israeli embassy to whom Thompson is now reported as being engaged. Can we read spy for ‘Counsellor’? Not according to Your ABC – but form your own opinion; they don’t cite any authority for that conclusion.

    Thompson is reported as asking Downer if he’d like to meet Papadopoulos and Downer thought it would be a good idea because they could both talk about oil and gas. Perhaps Downer had once asked someone to put some in his motor vehicle. Your ABC reports that Papadopoulos said to Downer “the Russians might use some damaging material they had on Hillary Clinton.” Your ABC repeats Papadopoulos’s denial of talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails to Downer and repeats Downer’s similar recollection. Like the Weekend Oz report: Downer sends a cable to Canberra within 48 hours and Joe Hockey, our Ambassador to the US, eventually notifies the FBI with the information. “[W]hen it became known that the FBI suspected a Russian hack of Clinton emails, the information was shared with the Five Eyes intelligence partner.”

    Note the amorphous reference to the Five Eyes which seems to suggest it was an intelligence communication. But that is part of the mist that has descended over Downer’s part in the FBI investigation. Downer, Erika Thompson and Christian Cantor disappear into the mist like Bogart and Claude Reins in Casablanca. Joe Hockey has been fingered as the rat who ratted on the Trump campaign to the FBI. However, it ignores the one report dated June 2 2018, in the Wall Street Journal which states that the information found its way to the FBI through Downer and not through Australia’s ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey.

    The WSJ report was confirmed by the Australian Financial Review on June 7, 2018, that cited a Fox interview with the Chairman of the US House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes who said:

    Mr Downer tipped off the US embassy in London and, by extension, president Barack Obama’s State Department, of which Mrs Clinton was previously in charge. We are not supposed to spy on each other’s citizens, and it’s worked well. And it continues to work well. And we know it’s working well because there was no intelligence that passed through the Five Eyes channels to our government.

    And that seemed to be confirmed on June 21, 2018, as I have previously shown, when it was reported that our super-spy, Alexander Downer, passed Papadopoulos’s information to the Deputy Head of Mission, Elizabeth Dibble at the US London embassy.

    Anyone with only the most passing of interest in Mueller’s Special Investigation of Russian interference in 2016 presidential campaign, will have developed a reasonable suspicion that it was manufactured by the Clinton campaign to destroy the Trump campaign, ably abetted by the DOJ and FBI who were conspiring to remove a duly elected President in the event Trump won.

    What part did the Turnbull government play in this malicious machination? On Downer’s express evidence, it was the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs that tacitly acted as agents of the Clinton campaign in order to communicate prejudicial information about Donald Trump to a US administration that was actively working to prevent his election.

    Bishop was interviewed by Chris Uhlmann on Channel 9’s 60 Minutes on Sunday night. Uhlmann questions allowed Bishop to virtuously criticise members of parliament as ill-behaved school children. His interview was a soft, Their ABC type interview; motherhood questions and motherhood answers. If Alexander Downer was telling the truth and the FBI heard about a Russian connection from Joe Hockey, then it is absolutely the case that both Julie Bishop as minister for foreign affairs and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and, therefore, the Commonwealth government, interfered on behalf of the Clinton campaign in the 2016 Presidential election.

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Jenn in the forum
    Howard Bowles threatened jail on laypeople who went to international police as advised by the Legal Services Board's highly knowledgable experts. The amazing upside down stories "all came true".


    There’s something radically wrong with a society that allows mass murderer James Gargasoulas to be eligible for parole in 46 years, locks up serial killer Ivan Milat for 181 years and then has an Australian Taxation Office employee facing 161 years in prison for blowing the whistle on a poor culture inside one of our most powerful agencies.

    Richard Boyle has been charged with 66 offences including telephone tapping and recording of conversations without the consent of all parties and making a record of protected information, in some cases passing that information to a third party.
    ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan during an ATO senate estimates committee hearing at Parliament House in Canberra on May 30, 2018.

    ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan during an ATO senate estimates committee hearing at Parliament House in Canberra on May 30, 2018.Credit:Dominic Lorrimer

    The information and summons sheet lists ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan as the informant, which includes his signature. The move will send chills through staff in the ATO who might've thought about following Boyle to become whistleblowers.

    The former tax employee hit the headlines in April 2018 when he turned whistleblower in a joint media investigation with The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and ABC’s Four Corners titled Mongrel Bunch of Bastards, which blew the lid on abuses by the ATO against small business and individuals.
    Advertisement

    His hearing, scheduled for March 1, comes after the bipartisan House Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue on Friday released a scathing report into the ATO, referring to it as an “annus horribilis” performance report.

    It makes 37 recommendations for reform.

    The recommendations made in this report intend to adjust the imbalance of power perceived by taxpayers in their engagement with the ATO.
    Parliamentary report

    “As the committee commenced its annual report review in March 2018, there was an acceleration of bad press as the ATO fought off allegations of systemic unfairness to small business, and performance-driven debt action, which were televised,” the committee said.

    “The recommendations made in this report intend to adjust the imbalance of power perceived by taxpayers in their engagement with the ATO, and to ensure that, under the ATO’s Reinvention [agenda], willing engagement will be the test for fair treatment.”

    Some of the recommendations are profound, including a new ATO charter, an appeals group headed by a second independent commissioner (as also pledged by the federal Labor opposition), the transfer of debt recovery functions into the ATO's compliance operations and a restructure of compensation processeses.

    It called for the tax regulator, the Inspector General of Taxation (IGT), to be given more resources, renamed the Tax Ombudsman and tasked with conducting a broad review of the role of outsourcing in changes to its performance and culture.
    Ali Noroozi.

    Ali Noroozi.Credit:Nic Walker

    Several of these recommendations were proposed by the former IGT Ali Noroozi for years and some of them shortly before his departure late in 2018.

    “In the committee’s view, the Tax Commissioner should strike a note for fairness and respect between the ATO, tax agents, and taxpayers in all his public statements, and this guarantee should be consistently extolled and consolidated in all ATO vision documents,” the parliamentary report said, putting the responsibility for implementation at the feet of the Treasury and the ATO.

    There are already changes afoot a new Small Business Tax Tribunal appeals body will start operating on March 1.

    The body is an initiative of the federal government to make life easier for small businesses battling the ATO. Its establishment was sparked by revelations from Boyle and others in the joint media investigation.
    ATO whistleblower Richard Boyle.

    ATO whistleblower Richard Boyle.Credit:James Elsby

    In a twist of irony March 1 is the same day Boyle’s court hearing is set down in the Magistrates Court of South Australia.

    Boyle, who had worked for the ATO since 2005 revealed that his area in the ATO had been instructed to use more heavyhanded debt collection tactics on taxpayers who owed the ATO money.

    He said they were told to start issuing “standard garnishee” notices to meet ATO revenue targets.

    A garnishee is a tool that allows the ATO to seize funds from the bank accounts of taxpayers who had been assessed to owe the ATO money, sometimes without their knowledge.

    In one internal email, supplied to the media investigation by Boyle, an ATO officer tells staff “the last hour of power is upon us… that means you still have time to issue another five garnishees… right?”

    The explosive allegations triggered a series of investigations into the ATO which resulted in both sides of politics announcing policies to improve the lot of small businesses when they are dealing with the ATO.

    But the lot of Boyle is a timely reminder of the risks whistleblowers take.

    Days before he went public his home was raided by the AFP and the ATO which alleged in a warrant he had illegally taken copies of taxpayer information, photos of ATO computer screens or emails.
    Current Time 1:35
    /
    Duration 1:35

    SEC goes after Elon Musk over another tweet

    SEC goes after Elon Musk over another tweet

    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett

    Up Next
    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett
    SEC goes after Elon Musk over another tweet

    The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday said a federal court should hold Tesla CEO Elon Musk in contempt for violating last year's settlement with the federal agency due to new statements made on Twitter.
    Stocks rally on trade hopes
    0.59
    Now playing
    Stocks rally on trade hopes
    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett
    1.51
    Up next
    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett
    Mortgage broker fees should be flat: Labor
    2.05
    Mortgage broker fees should be flat: Labor
    Weak economic data drags down Wall Street
    1.14
    Weak economic data drags down Wall Street
    Carmakers confront hard Brexit choices
    2.14
    Carmakers confront hard Brexit choices

    Weeks earlier he had declined a settlement with the ATO on the basis he didn’t want to be gagged from exposing questionable behaviour inside the country’s most powerful institution.

    His fate is now in the hands of the courts.

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' ATO Whistleblower faces 6 life sentences' in the forum.
    www.theage.com.au/business/small-busines...20190226-p510d2.html

    ATO whistleblower faces six life sentences, roughly the same as Ivan Milat

    You have 2 free articles remaining

    Unlock The Age from $3.50 per week.
    Find out more
    Already subscribed? Log in
    Adele Ferguson
    By Adele Ferguson
    February 27, 2019 — 12.00am

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Send via Email

    View all comments

    There’s something radically wrong with a society that allows mass murderer James Gargasoulas to be eligible for parole in 46 years, locks up serial killer Ivan Milat for 181 years and then has an Australian Taxation Office employee facing 161 years in prison for blowing the whistle on a poor culture inside one of our most powerful agencies.

    Richard Boyle has been charged with 66 offences including telephone tapping and recording of conversations without the consent of all parties and making a record of protected information, in some cases passing that information to a third party.
    ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan during an ATO senate estimates committee hearing at Parliament House in Canberra on May 30, 2018.

    ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan during an ATO senate estimates committee hearing at Parliament House in Canberra on May 30, 2018.Credit:Dominic Lorrimer

    The information and summons sheet lists ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan as the informant, which includes his signature. The move will send chills through staff in the ATO who might've thought about following Boyle to become whistleblowers.

    The former tax employee hit the headlines in April 2018 when he turned whistleblower in a joint media investigation with The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and ABC’s Four Corners titled Mongrel Bunch of Bastards, which blew the lid on abuses by the ATO against small business and individuals.
    Advertisement

    His hearing, scheduled for March 1, comes after the bipartisan House Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue on Friday released a scathing report into the ATO, referring to it as an “annus horribilis” performance report.

    It makes 37 recommendations for reform.

    The recommendations made in this report intend to adjust the imbalance of power perceived by taxpayers in their engagement with the ATO.
    Parliamentary report

    “As the committee commenced its annual report review in March 2018, there was an acceleration of bad press as the ATO fought off allegations of systemic unfairness to small business, and performance-driven debt action, which were televised,” the committee said.

    “The recommendations made in this report intend to adjust the imbalance of power perceived by taxpayers in their engagement with the ATO, and to ensure that, under the ATO’s Reinvention [agenda], willing engagement will be the test for fair treatment.”

    Some of the recommendations are profound, including a new ATO charter, an appeals group headed by a second independent commissioner (as also pledged by the federal Labor opposition), the transfer of debt recovery functions into the ATO's compliance operations and a restructure of compensation processeses.

    It called for the tax regulator, the Inspector General of Taxation (IGT), to be given more resources, renamed the Tax Ombudsman and tasked with conducting a broad review of the role of outsourcing in changes to its performance and culture.
    Ali Noroozi.

    Ali Noroozi.Credit:Nic Walker

    Several of these recommendations were proposed by the former IGT Ali Noroozi for years and some of them shortly before his departure late in 2018.

    “In the committee’s view, the Tax Commissioner should strike a note for fairness and respect between the ATO, tax agents, and taxpayers in all his public statements, and this guarantee should be consistently extolled and consolidated in all ATO vision documents,” the parliamentary report said, putting the responsibility for implementation at the feet of the Treasury and the ATO.

    There are already changes afoot a new Small Business Tax Tribunal appeals body will start operating on March 1.

    The body is an initiative of the federal government to make life easier for small businesses battling the ATO. Its establishment was sparked by revelations from Boyle and others in the joint media investigation.
    ATO whistleblower Richard Boyle.

    ATO whistleblower Richard Boyle.Credit:James Elsby

    In a twist of irony March 1 is the same day Boyle’s court hearing is set down in the Magistrates Court of South Australia.

    Boyle, who had worked for the ATO since 2005 revealed that his area in the ATO had been instructed to use more heavyhanded debt collection tactics on taxpayers who owed the ATO money.

    He said they were told to start issuing “standard garnishee” notices to meet ATO revenue targets.

    A garnishee is a tool that allows the ATO to seize funds from the bank accounts of taxpayers who had been assessed to owe the ATO money, sometimes without their knowledge.

    In one internal email, supplied to the media investigation by Boyle, an ATO officer tells staff “the last hour of power is upon us… that means you still have time to issue another five garnishees… right?”

    The explosive allegations triggered a series of investigations into the ATO which resulted in both sides of politics announcing policies to improve the lot of small businesses when they are dealing with the ATO.

    But the lot of Boyle is a timely reminder of the risks whistleblowers take.

    Days before he went public his home was raided by the AFP and the ATO which alleged in a warrant he had illegally taken copies of taxpayer information, photos of ATO computer screens or emails.
    Current Time 1:35
    /
    Duration 1:35

    SEC goes after Elon Musk over another tweet

    SEC goes after Elon Musk over another tweet

    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett

    Up Next
    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett
    SEC goes after Elon Musk over another tweet

    The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday said a federal court should hold Tesla CEO Elon Musk in contempt for violating last year's settlement with the federal agency due to new statements made on Twitter.
    Stocks rally on trade hopes
    0.59
    Now playing
    Stocks rally on trade hopes
    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett
    1.51
    Up next
    'Elephant-sized acquisition' unlikely: Buffett
    Mortgage broker fees should be flat: Labor
    2.05
    Mortgage broker fees should be flat: Labor
    Weak economic data drags down Wall Street
    1.14
    Weak economic data drags down Wall Street
    Carmakers confront hard Brexit choices
    2.14
    Carmakers confront hard Brexit choices

    Weeks earlier he had declined a settlement with the ATO on the basis he didn’t want to be gagged from exposing questionable behaviour inside the country’s most powerful institution.

    His fate is now in the hands of the courts.

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Royal Commission Mental Health Victoria' in the forum.
    February 24, 2019 9:41 am AEDT
    Share Twitter Facebook
    Experts To Lead The Mental Health Royal Commission

    The Andrews Labor Government has appointed respected public policy expert Penny Armytage as the Chair of the Royal Commission into Mental Health and released its terms of reference.

    Ms Armytage will be joined by Associate Professor Alex Cockram, Professor Allan Fels AO and Professor Bernadette McSherry as the Commissioners who will lead the landmark inquiry. The Labor Government has already committed to implementing each one of their recommendations.

    Ms Armytage has played a leading role in major health and human service sector reform. She has most recently served as the Chair of the Transport Accident Commission and the President of Berry Street.

    Associate Professor Cockram has 30 years’ experience in health, including clinical and academic experience. She is an Associate Professor in the University of Melbourne’s Department of Psychiatry and a former Chief Executive Officer at Western Health.

    Professor Fels is the former Chair of the National Mental Health Commission and a leading Australian economist and lawyer best known for his role as Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
    Read more: The XXI Habanos Festival Comes to a Close With a Gala Evening Dedicated to the 50th Anniversary of Trinidad Brand

    Professor McSherry is an internationally-recognised legal academic in the fields of criminal law and mental health law, and President of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

    The Labor Government also released the Terms of Reference that will guide the Royal Commission. The Terms of Reference have been devised after consultation with the experts in the mental health sector and the community.

    The Government held more than 20 round tables across the state to hear from the experts and from Victorians who have lived experiences of mental health.

    More than 8,000 Victorians made a submission online to help shape the terms of reference, which include:

    How to most effectively prevent mental illness and suicide
    How to deliver the best mental health outcomes and help Victorians navigate the system
    How to best support the needs of family members and carers of people living with mental illness
    How to improve outcomes for those in the community at greater risk of experiencing poor mental health
    How to best support people living with mental illness and problematic alcohol and drug use

    Read more: Police update: Appeal - failure to appearin Brisbane

    The Commission will deliver a preliminary report by November 30 2019 and a final report in October 2020.

    If you or someone you know is in crisis or needs support, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or BeyondBlue on 1300 224 636.

    As stated by Premier Daniel Andrews

    “We don’t have all the answers when it comes to mental health. That’s why we’re drawing on the experts who know the sector best and the Victorians who have lived experiences to help us find them.”

    As stated by Minister for Mental Health Martin Foley

    “One in five Victorians will experience mental illness this year, and too many of those will lose their lives to suicide. We need a new approach to mental health, and a Royal Commission will help deliver a new system.”

    Read More...
    4 weeks ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Whistleblower Enhanced Protection Act passed' in the forum.
    2016 2017 2018

    The Parliament of the
    Commonwealth of Australia

    THE SENATE




    As passed by both Houses




    Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2018

    No. , 2018





    A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to whistleblowing, and for related purposes



    Contents
    1 Short title 1
    2 Commencement 1
    3 Schedules 2
    Schedule 1—Amendments 3
    Part 1—Amendment of the Corporations Act 2001 3
    Corporations Act 2001 3
    Part 2—Amendment of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 24
    Taxation Administration Act 1953 24
    Part 3—Other amendments 37
    Banking Act 1959 37
    Insurance Act 1973 37
    Life Insurance Act 1995 38
    Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 39
    Part 4—Contingent amendments 40
    Corporations Act 2001 40
    Taxation Administration Act 1953 41



    A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to whistleblowing, and for related purposes
    The Parliament of Australia enacts:
    1 Short title
    This Act is the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018.
    2 Commencement
    (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.

    Commencement information
    Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
    Provisions Commencement Date/Details
    1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table The day this Act receives the Royal Assent.
    2. Schedule 1, Parts 1, 2 and 3 The first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October to occur after the end of the period of 3 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent.
    3. Schedule 1, Part 4 The later of:
    (a) immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 2; and
    (b) immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Act 2018.
    However, the provisions do not commence at all if the event mentioned in paragraph (b) does not occur.
    Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.
    (2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.
    3 Schedules
    Legislation that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.
    Schedule 1—Amendments
    Part 1—Amendment of the Corporations Act 2001
    Corporations Act 2001
    1 Section 9
    Insert:
    eligible recipient has the meaning given by section 1317AAC.
    eligible whistleblower has the meaning given by section 1317AAA.
    regulated entity has the meaning given by section 1317AAB.
    State or Territory authority means an authority or other body (whether incorporated or not) that is established or continued in existence by or under a law of a State or Territory.
    2 Section 1317AA
    Repeal the section, substitute:
    1317AA Disclosures qualifying for protection under this Part
    Disclosure to ASIC, APRA or prescribed body
    (1) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this Part if:
    (a) the discloser is an eligible whistleblower in relation to a regulated entity; and
    (b) the disclosure is made to any of the following:
    (i) ASIC;
    (ii) APRA;
    (iii) a Commonwealth authority prescribed for the purposes of this subparagraph in relation to the regulated entity; and
    (c) subsection (4) or (5) applies to the disclosure.
    Note: Section 1317AAD (public interest disclosure and emergency disclosure) and paragraph 1317AB(1)(c) (protection from self incrimination etc.) may apply to a disclosure covered by this subsection.
    Disclosure to eligible recipients
    (2) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this Part if:
    (a) the discloser is an eligible whistleblower in relation to a regulated entity; and
    (b) the disclosure is made to an eligible recipient in relation to the regulated entity; and
    (c) subsection (4) or (5) applies to the disclosure.
    Disclosure to legal practitioner
    (3) A disclosure of information by an individual qualifies for protection under this Part if the disclosure is made to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal representation in relation to the operation of this Part.
    Disclosable matters
    (4) This subsection applies to a disclosure of information if the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information concerns misconduct, or an improper state of affairs or circumstances, in relation to:
    (a) the regulated entity; or
    (b) if the regulated entity is a body corporate—a related body corporate of the regulated entity.
    (5) Without limiting subsection (4), this subsection applies to a disclosure of information if the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information indicates that any of the following:
    (a) the regulated entity, or an officer or employee of the regulated entity;
    (b) if the regulated entity is a body corporate—a related body corporate of the regulated entity, or an officer or employee of a related body corporate of the regulated entity;
    has engaged in conduct that:
    (c) constitutes an offence against, or a contravention of, a provision of any of the following:
    (i) this Act;
    (ii) the ASIC Act;
    (iii) the Banking Act 1959;
    (iv) the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001;
    (v) the Insurance Act 1973;
    (vi) the Life Insurance Act 1995;
    (vii) the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009;
    (viii) the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993;
    (ix) an instrument made under an Act referred to in any of subparagraphs (i) to (viii); or
    (d) constitutes an offence against any other law of the Commonwealth that is punishable by imprisonment for a period of 12 months or more; or
    (e) represents a danger to the public or the financial system; or
    (f) is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.
    Note: There is no requirement for a discloser to identify himself or herself in order for a disclosure to qualify for protection under this Part.
    1317AAA Eligible whistleblowers
    An individual is an eligible whistleblower in relation to a regulated entity if the individual is, or has been, any of the following:
    (a) an officer of the regulated entity;
    (b) an employee of the regulated entity;
    (c) an individual who supplies services or goods to the regulated entity (whether paid or unpaid);
    (d) an employee of a person that supplies services or goods to the regulated entity (whether paid or unpaid);
    (e) an individual who is an associate of the regulated entity;
    (f) for a regulated entity that is a superannuation entity:
    (i) an individual who is a trustee (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993), custodian (within the meaning of that Act) or investment manager (within the meaning of that Act) of the superannuation entity; or
    (ii) an officer of a body corporate that is a trustee, custodian or investment manager of the superannuation entity; or
    (iii) an employee of an individual referred to in subparagraph (i) or a body corporate referred to in subparagraph (ii); or
    (iv) an individual who supplies services or goods to an individual referred to in subparagraph (i) or a body corporate referred to in subparagraph (ii) (whether paid or unpaid); or
    (v) an employee of a person that supplies services or goods to an individual referred to in subparagraph (i) or a body corporate referred to in subparagraph (ii) (whether paid or unpaid);
    (g) a relative of an individual referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (f);
    (h) a dependant of an individual referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (f), or of such an individual’s spouse;
    (i) an individual prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to the regulated entity.
    1317AAB Regulated entities
    Each of the following is a regulated entity:
    (a) a company;
    (b) a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies;
    (c) an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959), an authorised NOHC (within the meaning of that Act) or a subsidiary of an ADI or an authorised NOHC;
    (d) a general insurer (within the meaning of the Insurance Act 1973), an authorised NOHC (within the meaning of that Act) or a subsidiary of a general insurer or an authorised NOHC;
    (e) a life company (within the meaning of the Life Insurance Act 1995), a registered NOHC (within the meaning of that Act) or a subsidiary of a life company or a registered NOHC;
    (f) a superannuation entity or a trustee (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) of a superannuation entity;
    (g) an entity prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.
    1317AAC Eligible recipients
    (1) Each of the following is an eligible recipient in relation to a regulated entity that is a body corporate:
    (a) an officer or senior manager of the body corporate or a related body corporate;
    (b) an auditor, or a member of an audit team conducting an audit, of the body corporate or a related body corporate;
    (c) an actuary of the body corporate or a related body corporate;
    (d) a person authorised by the body corporate to receive disclosures that may qualify for protection under this Part.
    (2) Each of the following is an eligible recipient in relation to a regulated entity that is a superannuation entity:
    (a) an officer of the superannuation entity;
    (b) an auditor, or a member of an audit team conducting an audit, of the superannuation entity;
    (c) an actuary of the superannuation entity;
    (d) an individual who is a trustee (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) of the superannuation entity;
    (e) a director of a body corporate that is the trustee (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) of the superannuation entity;
    (f) a person authorised by the trustee or trustees (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) of the superannuation entity to receive disclosures that may qualify for protection under this Part.
    (3) The regulations may prescribe persons or bodies that are eligible recipients in relation to all regulated entities, or in relation to a class or classes of regulated entities.
    (4) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not limit each other.
    1317AAD Public interest disclosure and emergency disclosure
    (1) A disclosure of information (the public interest disclosure) by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this Part if:
    (a) the discloser has previously made a disclosure of that information (the previous disclosure) that qualifies for protection under this Part under subsection 1317AA(1); and
    (b) at least 90 days have passed since the previous disclosure was made; and
    (c) the discloser does not have reasonable grounds to believe that action is being, or has been, taken to address the matters to which the previous disclosure related; and
    (d) the discloser has reasonable grounds to believe that making a further disclosure of the information in accordance with this subsection would be in the public interest; and
    (e) after the end of the period referred to in paragraph (b), the discloser gave the body to which the previous disclosure was made a written notification that:
    (i) includes sufficient information to identify the previous disclosure; and
    (ii) states that the discloser intends to make a public interest disclosure; and
    (f) the public interest disclosure is made to:
    (i) a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of a State or the legislature of a Territory; or
    (ii) a journalist; and
    (g) the extent of the information disclosed in the public interest disclosure is no greater than is necessary to inform the recipient referred to in paragraph (f) of the misconduct or the improper state of affairs or circumstances referred to in subsection 1317AA(4) or the conduct referred to in subsection 1317AA(5), as the case may be.
    (2) A disclosure of information (the emergency disclosure) by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this Part if:
    (a) the discloser has previously made a disclosure of that information (the previous disclosure) that qualifies for protection under this Part under subsection 1317AA(1); and
    (b) the discloser has reasonable grounds to believe that the information concerns a substantial and imminent danger to the health or safety of one or more persons or to the natural environment; and
    (c) the discloser gives the body to which the previous disclosure was made a written notification that:
    (i) includes sufficient information to identify the previous disclosure; and
    (ii) states that the discloser intends to make an emergency disclosure; and
    (d) the emergency disclosure is made to:
    (i) a member of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of a State or the legislature of a Territory; or
    (ii) a journalist; and
    (e) the extent of the information disclosed in the emergency disclosure is no greater than is necessary to inform the recipient referred to in paragraph (d) of the substantial and imminent danger.
    (3) In this section:
    journalist means a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist for any of the following:
    (a) a newspaper or magazine;
    (b) a radio or television broadcasting service;
    (c) an electronic service (including a service provided through the internet) that:
    (i) is operated on a commercial basis, or operated by a body that provides a national broadcasting service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992); and
    (ii) is similar to a newspaper, magazine or radio or television broadcast.
    1317AADA Personal work related grievances
    (1) Subsections 1317AA(1) and (2) do not apply to a disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) to the extent that the information disclosed:
    (a) concerns a personal work related grievance of the discloser; and
    (b) does not concern a contravention, or an alleged contravention, of section 1317AC that involves detriment caused to the discloser or a threat made to the discloser.
    Note: A disclosure concerning a personal work related grievance that is made to a legal practitioner may qualify for protection under this Part under subsection 1317AA(3).
    (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the information disclosed concerns a personal work related grievance of the discloser if:
    (a) the information concerns a grievance about any matter in relation to the discloser’s employment, or former employment, having (or tending to have) implications for the discloser personally; and
    (b) the information:
    (i) does not have significant implications for the regulated entity to which it relates, or another regulated entity, that do not relate to the discloser; and
    (ii) does not concern conduct, or alleged conduct, referred to in paragraph 1317AA(5)(c), (d), (e) or (f).
    Examples of grievances that may be personal work related grievances under paragraph (a) (but subject to paragraph (b)) are as follows:
    (a) an interpersonal conflict between the discloser and another employee;
    (b) a decision relating to the engagement, transfer or promotion of the discloser;
    (c) a decision relating to the terms and conditions of engagement of the discloser;
    (d) a decision to suspend or terminate the engagement of the discloser, or otherwise to discipline the discloser.
    1317AAE Confidentiality of whistleblower’s identity
    (1) A person (the first person) contravenes this subsection if:
    (a) another person (the discloser) makes a disclosure of information (the qualifying disclosure) that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (b) the first person discloses any of the following (the confidential information):
    (i) the identity of the discloser;
    (ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser; and
    (c) the confidential information is information that the first person obtained directly or indirectly because of the qualifying disclosure; and
    (d) the disclosure referred to in paragraph (b) is not authorised under subsection (2) or (3).
    Note 1: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).
    Note 2: This subsection is also a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this subsection, see section 1317S.
    (2) A disclosure referred to in paragraph (1)(b) is authorised under this subsection if it:
    (a) is made to ASIC; or
    (b) is made to APRA; or
    (c) is made to a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979); or
    (d) is made to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal representation in relation to the operation of this Part; or
    (e) is made to a person or body prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or
    (f) is made with the consent of the discloser.
    (3) Without limiting subsection (2), a disclosure referred to in paragraph (1)(b) is authorised under this subsection if it:
    (a) is made by ASIC, APRA or a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979); and
    (b) is made to a Commonwealth authority, or a State or Territory authority, for the purpose of assisting the authority in the performance of its functions or duties.
    (4) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
    (a) the disclosure referred to in paragraph (1)(b):
    (i) is not of the identity of the discloser; and
    (ii) is reasonably necessary for the purposes of investigating a matter referred to in subsection 1317AA(4) or (5) to which the qualifying disclosure relates; and
    (b) the first person takes all reasonable steps to reduce the risk that the discloser will be identified as a result of the disclosure referred to in paragraph (1)(b).
    Note: In a prosecution for an offence, a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.
    3 Subsection 1317AB(1)
    Repeal the subsection, substitute:
    (1) If a person makes a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part:
    (a) the person is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability (including disciplinary action) for making the disclosure; and
    (b) no contractual or other remedy may be enforced, and no contractual or other right may be exercised, against the person on the basis of the disclosure; and
    (c) if the disclosure qualifies for protection under this Part under subsection 1317AA(1) or section 1317AAD—the information is not admissible in evidence against the person in criminal proceedings or in proceedings for the imposition of a penalty, other than proceedings in respect of the falsity of the information.
    Note: Except as provided for by paragraph (c), this subsection does not prevent the person being subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for conduct of the person that is revealed by the disclosure.
    4 Subsection 1317AB(3)
    Repeal the subsection.
    5 Paragraphs 1317AC(1)(c) and (d)
    Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:
    (c) when the first person engages in the conduct, the first person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (d) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (c) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the conduct.
    6 At the end of subsections 1317AC(1), (2) and (3)
    Add:
    Note 1: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).
    Note 2: This subsection is also a civil penalty provision (see section 1317E). For relief from liability to a civil penalty relating to this subsection, see section 1317S.
    7 Subsection 1317AC(5)
    After “subsection (2)”, insert “or proceedings in relation to a contravention of subsection (2)”.
    9 Sections 1317AD and 1317AE
    Repeal the sections, substitute:
    1317AD Compensation and other remedies—circumstances in which an order may be made
    (1) A court may make an order under section 1317AE in relation to a person (the first person) if:
    (a) the first person engages in conduct (detrimental conduct) that:
    (i) causes any detriment to another person (the second person); or
    (ii) constitutes the making of a threat to cause any such detriment to another person (the second person); and
    (b) when the first person engages in the detrimental conduct, the first person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (c) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (b) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the detrimental conduct.
    (2) A court may make an order under section 1317AE in relation to a person (the first person) if:
    (a) the first person is or was an officer or employee of a body corporate; and
    (b) paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section apply to the body corporate because of detrimental conduct engaged in by the body corporate; and
    (c) the first person:
    (i) aided, abetted, counselled or procured the detrimental conduct; or
    (ii) induced, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, the detrimental conduct; or
    (iii) was in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the detrimental conduct; or
    (iv) conspired with others to effect the detrimental conduct.
    (2A) A court may make an order under section 1317AE in relation to a person (the first person) that is a body corporate if:
    (a) another person (the third person) engages in conduct (detrimental conduct) that:
    (i) causes any detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; or
    (ii) constitutes the making of a threat to cause any such detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; and
    (b) when the third person engages in the detrimental conduct, the third person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (c) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (b) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the detrimental conduct; and
    (d) the first person is under a duty to prevent the third person engaging in the detrimental conduct, or a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the third person does not engage in the detrimental conduct; and
    (e) the first person fails in part or whole to fulfil that duty.
    Burden of proof
    (2B) In proceedings where a person seeks an order under section 1317AE in relation to another person:
    (a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in:
    (i) if subsection (1) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a); or
    (ii) if subsection (2) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a), as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b); or
    (iii) if subsection (2A) of this section applies—paragraphs (2A)(a) and (d); and
    (b) if that onus is discharged—the other person bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.
    Threats
    (3) For the purposes of this section, a threat may be:
    (a) express or implied; or
    (b) conditional or unconditional.
    (4) In proceedings for the purposes of section 1317AE, it is not necessary to prove that the person threatened actually feared that the threat would be carried out.
    1317ADA Detriment
    In sections 1317AC and 1317AD, detriment includes (without limitation) any of the following:
    (a) dismissal of an employee;
    (b) injury of an employee in his or her employment;
    (c) alteration of an employee’s position or duties to his or her disadvantage;
    (d) discrimination between an employee and other employees of the same employer;
    (e) harassment or intimidation of a person;
    (f) harm or injury to a person, including psychological harm;
    (g) damage to a person’s property;
    (h) damage to a person’s reputation;
    (i) damage to a person’s business or financial position;
    (j) any other damage to a person.
    1317AE Compensation and other remedies—orders that may be made
    (1) For the purposes of subsections 1317AD(1), (2) and (2A), a court may make any of the following orders:
    (a) an order requiring the first person to compensate the second person, or any other person, for loss, damage or injury suffered as a result of the detrimental conduct;
    (b) if the court is satisfied that the first person engaged in the detrimental conduct in connection with the first person’s position as an employee:
    (i) an order requiring the first person to compensate the second person, or any other person, for a part of loss, damage or injury as a result of the detrimental conduct, and an order requiring the first person’s employer to compensate the second person, or any other person, for a part of loss, damage or injury as a result of the detrimental conduct; or
    (ii) an order requiring the first person and the first person’s employer jointly to compensate the second person, or any other person, for loss, damage or injury suffered as a result of the detrimental conduct; or
    (iii) an order requiring the first person’s employer to compensate the second person, or any other person, for loss, damage or injury as a result of the detrimental conduct;
    (c) an order granting an injunction, on such terms as the court thinks appropriate, to prevent, stop or remedy the effects of the detrimental conduct;
    (d) an order requiring the first person to apologise to the second person, or any other person, for engaging in the detrimental conduct;
    (e) if the second person is or was employed in a particular position and the detrimental conduct wholly or partly consists, or consisted, of the termination, or purported termination, of the second person’s employment—an order that the second person be reinstated in that position or a position at a comparable level;
    (f) if the court thinks it is appropriate—an order requiring the first person to pay exemplary damages to the second person, or any other person;
    (g) any other order the court thinks appropriate.
    (2) If the detrimental conduct wholly or partly consists, or consisted, of terminating or purporting to terminate a person’s employment (including detrimental conduct that forces or forced the person to resign), the court must, in making an order mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), consider the period, if any, the person is likely to be without employment as a result of the detrimental conduct. This subsection does not limit any other matter the court may consider.
    (3) In deciding whether to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) in relation to the first person’s employer, the court may have regard to the following:
    (a) whether the employer took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the detrimental conduct;
    (b) if the employer has a policy dealing with any or all of the matters referred to in subsection 1317AI(5) (whether or not section 1317AI requires the employer to have such a policy)—the extent to which the employer gave effect to that policy;
    (c) any duty that the employer was under to prevent the detrimental conduct, or to take reasonable steps to ensure that the detrimental conduct was not engaged in.
    (4) If the court makes an order under subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the first person and the first person’s employer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation concerned.
    1317AF Interaction between civil proceedings, civil penalties and criminal offences
    To avoid doubt, a person may bring civil proceedings for an order under section 1317AE, or civil proceedings for a contravention of subsection 1317AC(1), (2) or (3), in relation to particular conduct, even if a prosecution for a criminal offence against section 1317AC in relation to that conduct has not been brought, or cannot be brought.
    1317AG Identifying information not to be disclosed etc. to courts or tribunals
    If a person (the discloser) makes a disclosure of information that qualifies for protection under this Part, the discloser or any other person is not to be required:
    (a) to disclose to a court or tribunal:
    (i) the identity of the discloser; or
    (ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser; or
    (b) to produce to a court or tribunal a document containing:
    (i) the identity of the discloser; or
    (ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser;
    except where:
    (c) it is necessary to do so for the purposes of giving effect to this Part; or
    (d) the court or tribunal thinks it necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
    Note: A discloser may also be able to apply to the court or tribunal, in accordance with the rules of the court or tribunal, for an order protecting the discloser’s identity.
    1317AH Costs only if proceedings instituted vexatiously etc.
    (1) This section applies to a proceeding (including an appeal) in a court in relation to a matter arising under section 1317AE in which a person (the claimant) is seeking an order under subsection 1317AE(1).
    (2) The claimant must not be ordered by the court to pay costs incurred by another party to the proceedings, except in accordance with subsection (3) of this section.
    (3) The claimant may be ordered to pay the costs only if:
    (a) the court is satisfied that the claimant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or
    (b) the court is satisfied that the claimant’s unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs.
    1317AI Whistleblower policies
    (1) A public company must:
    (a) have a policy that sets out the matters referred to in subsection (5); and
    (b) make that policy available to officers and employees of the company.
    Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence: see subsection 1311(1).
    (2) A proprietary company that has been a large proprietary company for any financial year (the first financial year) must, on each day in each later financial year that is at least 6 months after the last day of the first financial year:
    (a) have a policy that sets out the matters referred to in subsection (5); and
    (b) make that policy available to officers and employees of the company.
    Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence: see subsection 1311(1).
    (3) Without limiting subsection (2), a proprietary company that is the trustee (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993) of a registrable superannuation entity (within the meaning of that Act) must:
    (a) have a policy that sets out the matters referred to in subsection (5); and
    (b) make that policy available to officers and employees of the company.
    Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence: see subsection 1311(1).
    (4) An offence based on subsection (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.
    Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
    (5) The matters that a policy must set out for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), (2)(a) or (3)(a) are:
    (a) information about the protections available to whistleblowers, including protections under this Part; and
    (b) information about to whom disclosures that qualify for protection under this Part may be made, and how they may be made; and
    (c) information about how the company will support whistleblowers and protect them from detriment; and
    (d) information about how the company will investigate disclosures that qualify for protection under this Part; and
    (e) information about how the company will ensure fair treatment of employees of the company who are mentioned in disclosures that qualify for protection under this Part, or to whom such disclosures relate; and
    (f) information about how the policy is to be made available to officers and employees of the company; and
    (g) any matters prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.
    1317AJ Exemption orders—class orders for companies
    (1) ASIC may, by legislative instrument, make an order in respect of a specified class of company relieving companies in the class from all or specified requirements of section 1317AI.
    (2) The order may:
    (a) be expressed to be subject to conditions; and
    (b) be indefinite or limited to a specified period.
    1317AK Review of operation of whistleblower protections
    (1) The Minister must cause a review to be undertaken of the operation of:
    (a) this Part; and
    (b) Part IVD of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.
    Note: Part IVD of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 provides for protections for whistleblowers in relation to tax.
    (2) The review must be conducted as soon as practicable after the end of 5 years after this section commences.
    (3) The Minister must cause a written report about the review to be prepared.
    (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.
    10 Subsection 1317E(1) (after table item 45)
    Insert:

    45A subsection 1317AAE(1) breach of confidentiality of identity of whistleblower
    45B subsections 1317AC(1), (2) and (3) victimisation or threatened victimisation of whistleblower

    11 After subsection 1317G(1G)
    Insert:
    Whistleblower provisions
    (1H) A Court may order a person to pay the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty if:
    (a) a declaration of contravention by the person has been made under section 1317E; and
    (b) the contravention is of subsection 1317AAE(1) (confidentiality of whistleblower’s identity) or subsection 1317AC(1), (2) or (3) (victimisation or threatened victimisation of whistleblower).
    (1J) The maximum amount that the court may order the person to pay for contravening subsection 1317AAE(1) or 1317AC(1), (2) or (3) is:
    (a) $200,000 for an individual; or
    (b) $1 million for a body corporate.
    12 In the appropriate position in Chapter 10
    Insert:
    Part 10.32—Transitional provisions relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018

    1644 Application of amendments
    (1) The amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018 apply in relation to disclosures that:
    (a) are made at or after the time that Part commences (the commencement time); and
    (b) relate to matters that occur or occurred before, at or after the commencement time.
    (2) Without limiting subsection (1), sections 1317AC, 1317AD and 1317AE, and any other provision of Part 9.4AAA to the extent that it relates to those sections, as in force immediately after the commencement time, also apply at and after the commencement time in relation to a disclosure that:
    (a) was made before the commencement time; and
    (b) would be a disclosure protected by Part 9.4AAA, if the amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018 had been in force at the time the disclosure was made.
    Whistleblower policies
    (3) Subsections 1317AI(1) to (4), as inserted by item 9 of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018, apply on and after the day 6 months after the day that item commences.
    (4) A reference to a financial year in subsection 1317AI(2), as inserted by that item, is a reference to a financial year that ends on or after 30 June 2018.
    13 Schedule 3 (table items 338 and 338A)
    Repeal the items, substitute:

    337A Subsection 1317AAE(1) 30 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.
    338 Subsection 1317AC(1), (2) or (3) 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.
    338A Subsection 1317AI(1), (2) or (3) 60 penalty units.

    Part 2—Amendment of the Taxation Administration Act 1953
    Taxation Administration Act 1953
    14 Subsection 2(1)
    Insert:
    eligible recipient has the meaning given by section 14ZZV.
    eligible whistleblower has the meaning given by section 14ZZU.
    15 After Part IVC
    Insert:
    Part IVD—Protection for whistleblowers

    14ZZT Disclosures qualifying for protection under this Part
    (1) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this Part if:
    (a) the discloser is an eligible whistleblower in relation to an entity (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997); and
    (b) the disclosure is made to the Commissioner; and
    (c) the discloser considers that the information may assist the Commissioner to perform his or her functions or duties under a taxation law in relation to the entity or an associate (within the meaning of section 318 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) of the entity.
    (2) A disclosure of information by an individual (the discloser) qualifies for protection under this Part if:
    (a) the discloser is an eligible whistleblower in relation to an entity (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997); and
    (b) the disclosure is made to an eligible recipient in relation to the entity; and
    (c) the discloser has reasonable grounds to suspect that the information indicates misconduct, or an improper state of affairs or circumstances, in relation to the tax affairs of the entity or an associate (within the meaning of section 318 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) of the entity; and
    (d) the discloser considers that the information may assist the eligible recipient to perform functions or duties in relation to the tax affairs of the entity or an associate (within the meaning of section 318 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) of the entity.
    (3) A disclosure of information by an individual qualifies for protection under this Part if the disclosure is made to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal representation in relation to the operation of this Part.
    (4) In this section:
    tax affairs means affairs relating to any tax imposed by or under, or assessed or collected under, a law administered by the Commissioner.
    Note: There is no requirement for a discloser to identify himself or herself in order for a disclosure to qualify for protection under this Part.
    14ZZU Eligible whistleblowers
    An individual is an eligible whistleblower in relation to an entity (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) if the individual is, or has been, any of the following:
    (a) an officer (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the entity;
    (b) an employee of the entity;
    (c) an individual who supplies services or goods to the entity (whether paid or unpaid);
    (d) an employee of a person that supplies services or goods to the entity (whether paid or unpaid);
    (e) an individual who is an associate (within the meaning of section 318 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936) of the entity;
    (f) a spouse or child of an individual referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e);
    (g) a dependant of an individual referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e), or of such an individual’s spouse;
    (h) an individual prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to the entity.
    14ZZV Eligible recipients
    (1) Each of the following is an eligible recipient in relation to an entity (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997):
    (a) an auditor, or a member of an audit team conducting an audit, of the entity;
    (b) a registered tax agent or BAS agent (within the meaning of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009) who provides tax agent services (within the meaning of that Act) or BAS services (within the meaning of that Act) to the entity;
    (c) a person authorised by the entity to receive disclosures that may qualify for protection under this Part;
    (d) a person or body prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to the entity.
    (2) If the entity is a body corporate, each of the following is an eligible recipient in relation to the entity:
    (a) a director, secretary or senior manager (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the body corporate;
    (b) any other employee or officer (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the body corporate who has functions or duties that relate to the tax affairs (within the meaning of section 14ZZT) of the body corporate.
    (3) If the entity is a trust, each of the following is an eligible recipient in relation to the entity:
    (a) a trustee of the trust;
    (b) a person authorised by a trustee of the trust to receive disclosures that may qualify for protection under this Part.
    (4) If the entity is a partnership, each of the following is an eligible recipient in relation to the entity:
    (a) a partner in the partnership;
    (b) a person authorised by a partner in the partnership to receive disclosures that may qualify for protection under this Part.
    (5) Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) do not limit each other.
    14ZZW Confidentiality of whistleblower’s identity
    (1) A person (the first person) commits an offence if:
    (a) another person (the discloser) makes a disclosure of information (the qualifying disclosure) that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (b) the first person discloses any of the following (the confidential information):
    (i) the identity of the discloser;
    (ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser; and
    (c) the confidential information is information that the first person obtained directly or indirectly because of the qualifying disclosure; and
    (d) the disclosure referred to in paragraph (b) is not authorised under subsection (2).
    Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months or 30 penalty units, or both.
    (2) A disclosure referred to in paragraph (1)(b) is authorised under this subsection if it:
    (a) is made to the Commissioner; or
    (b) is made to a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979); or
    (c) is made to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal representation in relation to the operation of this Part; or
    (d) is made to a person or body prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; or
    (e) is made with the consent of the discloser.
    (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
    (a) the disclosure referred to in paragraph (1)(b):
    (i) is not of the identity of the discloser; and
    (ii) is reasonably necessary for the purposes of investigating misconduct, or an improper state of affairs or circumstances, to which the qualifying disclosure relates; and
    (b) the first person takes all reasonable steps to reduce the risk that the discloser will be identified as a result of the disclosure referred to in paragraph (1)(b).
    Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.
    14ZZX Disclosure that qualifies for protection not actionable etc.
    (1) If a person makes a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part:
    (a) the person is not subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability (including disciplinary action) for making the disclosure; and
    (b) no contractual or other remedy may be enforced, and no contractual or other right may be exercised, against the person on the basis of the disclosure; and
    (c) if the disclosure was a disclosure of information to the Commissioner—the information is not admissible in evidence against the person in criminal proceedings or in proceedings for the imposition of a penalty, other than proceedings in respect of the falsity of the information.
    Note: Except as provided for by paragraph (c), this subsection does not prevent the person being subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for conduct of the person that is revealed by the disclosure.
    (2) Without limiting subsection (1):
    (a) the person has qualified privilege in respect of the disclosure; and
    (b) a contract to which the person is a party may not be terminated on the basis that the disclosure constitutes a breach of the contract.
    14ZZY Victimisation prohibited
    Actually causing detriment to another person
    (1) A person (the first person) commits an offence if:
    (a) the first person engages in conduct; and
    (b) the first person’s conduct causes any detriment to another person (the second person); and
    (c) when the first person engages in the conduct, the first person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (d) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (c) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the conduct.
    Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.
    Threatening to cause detriment to another person
    (2) A person (the first person) commits an offence if:
    (a) the first person makes to another person (the second person) a threat to cause any detriment to the second person or to a third person; and
    (b) the first person:
    (i) intends the second person to fear that the threat will be carried out; or
    (ii) is reckless as to causing the second person to fear that the threat will be carried out; and
    (c) the first person makes the threat because a person:
    (i) makes a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; or
    (ii) may make a disclosure that would qualify for protection under this Part.
    Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units, or both.
    Threats
    (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a threat may be:
    (a) express or implied; or
    (b) conditional or unconditional.
    (4) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (2), it is not necessary to prove that the person threatened actually feared that the threat would be carried out.
    14ZZZ Compensation and other remedies—circumstances in which an order may be made
    (1) A court may make an order under section 14ZZZA in relation to a person (the first person) if:
    (a) the first person engages in conduct (detrimental conduct) that:
    (i) causes any detriment to another person (the second person); or
    (ii) constitutes the making of a threat to cause any such detriment to another person (the second person); and
    (b) when the first person engages in the detrimental conduct, the first person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (c) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (b) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the detrimental conduct.
    (2) A court may make an order under section 14ZZZA in relation to a person (the first person) if:
    (a) the first person is or was an officer (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) or employee of a body corporate; and
    (b) paragraphs (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section apply to the body corporate because of detrimental conduct engaged in by the body corporate; and
    (c) the first person:
    (i) aided, abetted, counselled or procured the detrimental conduct; or
    (ii) induced, whether by threats or promises or otherwise, the detrimental conduct; or
    (iii) was in any way, by act or omission, directly or indirectly, knowingly concerned in, or party to, the detrimental conduct; or
    (iv) conspired with others to effect the detrimental conduct.
    (2A) A court may make an order under section 14ZZZA in relation to a person (the first person) that is a body corporate if:
    (a) another person (the third person) engages in conduct (detrimental conduct) that:
    (i) causes any detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; or
    (ii) constitutes the making of a threat to cause any such detriment to a person (the second person) other than the first person or the third person; and
    (b) when the third person engages in the detrimental conduct, the third person believes or suspects that the second person or any other person made, may have made, proposes to make or could make a disclosure that qualifies for protection under this Part; and
    (c) the belief or suspicion referred to in paragraph (b) is the reason, or part of the reason, for the detrimental conduct; and
    (d) the first person is under a duty to prevent the third person engaging in the detrimental conduct, or a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that the third person does not engage in the detrimental conduct; and
    (e) the first person fails in part or whole to fulfil that duty.
    Burden of proof
    (2B) In proceedings where a person seeks an order under section 14ZZZA in relation to another person:
    (a) the person seeking the order bears the onus of adducing or pointing to evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility of the matters in:
    (i) if subsection (1) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a); or
    (ii) if subsection (2) of this section applies—paragraph (1)(a), as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b); or
    (iii) if subsection (2A) of this section applies—paragraphs (2A)(a) and (d); and
    (b) if that onus is discharged—the other person bears the onus of proving that the claim is not made out.
    Threats
    (3) For the purposes of this section, a threat may be:
    (a) express or implied; or
    (b) conditional or unconditional.
    (4) In proceedings for the purposes of section 14ZZZA, it is not necessary to prove that the person threatened actually feared that the threat would be carried out.
    14ZZZAA Detriment
    In sections 14ZZY and 14ZZZ, detriment includes (without limitation) any of the following:
    (a) dismissal of an employee;
    (b) injury of an employee in his or her employment;
    (c) alteration of an employee’s position or duties to his or her disadvantage;
    (d) discrimination between an employee and other employees of the same employer;
    (e) harassment or intimidation of a person;
    (f) harm or injury to a person, including psychological harm;
    (g) damage to a person’s property;
    (h) damage to a person’s reputation;
    (i) damage to a person’s business or financial position;
    (j) any other damage to a person.
    14ZZZA Compensation and other remedies—orders that may be made
    (1) For the purposes of subsections 14ZZZ(1), (2) and (2A), a court may make any of the following orders:
    (a) an order requiring the first person to compensate the second person, or any other person, for loss, damage or injury suffered as a result of the detrimental conduct;
    (b) if the court is satisfied that the first person engaged in the detrimental conduct in connection with the first person’s position as an employee:
    (i) an order requiring the first person to compensate the second person, or any other person, for a part of loss, damage or injury as a result of the detrimental conduct, and an order requiring the first person’s employer to compensate the second person, or any other person, for a part of loss, damage or injury as a result of the detrimental conduct; or
    (ii) an order requiring the first person and the first person’s employer jointly to compensate the second person, or any other person, for loss, damage or injury suffered as a result of the detrimental conduct; or
    (iii) an order requiring the first person’s employer to compensate the second person, or any other person, for loss, damage or injury as a result of the detrimental conduct;
    (c) an order granting an injunction, on such terms as the court thinks appropriate, to prevent, stop or remedy the effects of the detrimental conduct;
    (d) an order requiring the first person to apologise to the second person, or any other person, for engaging in the detrimental conduct;
    (e) if the second person is or was employed in a particular position and the detrimental conduct wholly or partly consists, or consisted, of the termination, or purported termination, of the second person’s employment—an order that the second person be reinstated in that position or a position at a comparable level;
    (f) if the court thinks it is appropriate—an order requiring the first person to pay exemplary damages to the second person, or any other person;
    (g) any other order the court thinks appropriate.
    (2) If the detrimental conduct wholly or partly consists, or consisted, of terminating or purporting to terminate a person’s employment (including detrimental conduct that forces or forced the person to resign), the court must, in making an order mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), consider the period, if any, the person is likely to be without employment as a result of the detrimental conduct. This subsection does not limit any other matter the court may consider.
    (3) In deciding whether to make an order under paragraph (1)(b) in relation to the first person’s employer, the court may have regard to the following:
    (a) whether the employer took reasonable precautions, and exercised due diligence, to avoid the detrimental conduct;
    (b) if the employer has a policy dealing with any or all of the matters referred to in subsection 1317AI(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (whether or not section 1317AI of that Act requires the employer to have such a policy)—the extent to which the employer gave effect to that policy;
    (c) any duty that the employer was under to prevent the detrimental conduct, or to take reasonable steps to ensure that the detrimental conduct was not engaged in.
    (4) If the court makes an order under subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), the first person and the first person’s employer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation concerned.
    14ZZZB Identifying information not to be disclosed etc. to courts or tribunals
    If a person (the discloser) makes a disclosure of information that qualifies for protection under this Part, the discloser or any other person is not to be required:
    (a) to disclose to a court or tribunal:
    (i) the identity of the discloser; or
    (ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser; or
    (b) to produce to a court or tribunal a document containing:
    (i) the identity of the discloser; or
    (ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser;
    except where:
    (c) it is necessary to do so for the purposes of giving effect to this Part; or
    (d) the court or tribunal thinks it necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
    Note: A discloser may also be able to apply to the court or tribunal, in accordance with the rules of the court or tribunal, for an order protecting the discloser’s identity.
    14ZZZC Costs only if proceedings instituted vexatiously etc.
    (1) This section applies to a proceeding (including an appeal) in a court in relation to a matter arising under section 14ZZZA in which a person (the claimant) is seeking an order under subsection 14ZZZA(1).
    (2) The claimant must not be ordered by the court to pay costs incurred by another party to the proceedings, except in accordance with subsection (3) of this section.
    (3) The claimant may be ordered to pay the costs only if:
    (a) the court is satisfied that the claimant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause; or
    (b) the court is satisfied that the claimant’s unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs.
    14ZZZD Interaction between civil proceedings and criminal offences
    To avoid doubt, a person may bring civil proceedings under section 14ZZZA in relation to conduct even if a prosecution for a criminal offence against section 14ZZY in relation to the conduct has not been brought, or cannot be brought.
    14ZZZE Compensation for acquisition of property
    (1) If the operation of this Part would result in an acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) from a person otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph), the Commonwealth is liable to pay a reasonable amount of compensation to the person.
    (2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines.
    (3) Payments under this section are to be made out of money appropriated by the Parliament by another Act.
    (4) To avoid doubt, section 16 does not apply to a payment under this section.
    16 Application
    The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to disclosures that:
    (a) are made at or after the time this Part commences (the commencement time); and
    (b) relate to matters that occur or occurred before, at or after the commencement time.
    Part 3—Other amendments
    Banking Act 1959
    17 Part VIA (after the heading)
    Insert:
    Note: For protections for whistleblowers, see Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001.
    18 Division 1 of Part VIA
    Repeal the Division.
    19 Division 2 of Part VIA (heading)
    Repeal the heading.
    20 Application
    Despite the repeal of Division 1 of Part VIA of the Banking Act 1959 by item 18, that Division continues to apply, at and after the commencement of this item, in relation to:
    (a) disclosures of information made before that commencement; and
    (b) conduct referred to in subsection 52C(1) of the Banking Act 1959, as in force immediately before that commencement, that is engaged in before that commencement; and
    (c) a threat referred to in subsection 52C(2) of the Banking Act 1959, as in force immediately before that commencement, that is made before that commencement.
    Insurance Act 1973
    21 Division 4 of Part IIIA (after the heading)
    Insert:
    Note: For protections for whistleblowers, see Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001.
    22 Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part IIIA
    Repeal the Subdivision.
    23 Subdivision B of Division 4 of Part IIIA (heading)
    Repeal the heading.
    24 Application
    Despite the repeal of Subdivision A of Division 4 of Part IIIA of the Insurance Act 1973 by item 22, that Subdivision continues to apply, at and after the commencement of this item, in relation to:
    (a) disclosures of information made before that commencement; and
    (b) conduct referred to in subsection 38C(1) of the Insurance Act 1973, as in force immediately before that commencement, that is engaged in before that commencement; and
    (c) a threat referred to in subsection 38C(2) of the Insurance Act 1973, as in force immediately before that commencement, that is made before that commencement.
    Life Insurance Act 1995
    25 Division 5 of Part 7 (after the heading)
    Insert:
    Note: For protections for whistleblowers, see Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001.
    26 Subdivision A of Division 5 of Part 7
    Repeal the Subdivision.
    27 Subdivision B of Division 5 of Part 7 (heading)
    Repeal the heading.
    28 Application
    Despite the repeal of Subdivision A of Division 5 of Part 7 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 by item 26, that Subdivision continues to apply, at and after the commencement of this item, in relation to:
    (a) disclosures of information made before that commencement; and
    (b) conduct referred to in subsection 156C(1) of the Life Insurance Act 1995, as in force immediately before that commencement, that is engaged in before that commencement; and
    (c) a threat referred to in subsection 156C(2) of the Life Insurance Act 1995, as in force immediately before that commencement, in relation to such disclosures, that is made before that commencement.
    Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993
    29 Part 29A (after the heading)
    Insert:
    Note: For protections for whistleblowers, see Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001.
    30 Division 1 of Part 29A
    Repeal the Division.
    31 Division 2 of Part 29A (heading)
    Repeal the heading.
    32 Application
    Despite the repeal of Division 1 of Part 29A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 by item 30, that Division continues to apply, at and after the commencement of this item, in relation to:
    (a) disclosures of information made before that commencement; and
    (b) conduct referred to in subsection 336C(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, as in force immediately before that commencement, that is engaged in before that commencement; and
    (c) a threat referred to in subsection 336C(2) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, as in force immediately before that commencement, that is made before that commencement.
    Part 4—Contingent amendments
    Corporations Act 2001
    33 In the appropriate position in subsection 1317E(3)
    Insert:

    Subsection 1317AAE(1) breach of confidentiality of identity of whistleblower uncategorised
    Subsections 1317AC(1), (2) and (3) victimisation or threatened victimisation of whistleblower uncategorised
    34 At the end of Part 10.32
    Add:
    1644A Application of amendments relating to penalties
    The amendments made by Part 4 of Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Act 2018 apply in relation to the commission of an offence if the conduct constituting the commission of the offence occurs wholly on or after the commencement of that Part.
    35 Schedule 3 (table items dealing with subsections 1317AC(1), (2) and (3) and subsection 1317AE(1))
    Repeal the items, substitute:

    Subsection 1317AAE(1) 6 months imprisonment
    Subsections 1317AC(1), (2) and (3) 2 years imprisonment
    Subsections 1317AI(1), (2) and (3) 60 penalty units
    Taxation Administration Act 1953
    36 Subsection 14ZZW(1) (penalty)
    Omit “30 penalty units”, substitute “60 penalty units”.
    37 Subsections 14ZZY(1) and (2) (penalties)
    Omit “120 pen
    4 weeks ago
  • ASIC is investigating the RoyalCommission case studies.

    Were Howard Bowles' customer Elliot Sgargetta right about the banks and crimes ?

    download.asic.gov.au/media/5011933/asic-...-recommendations.pdf

    Read More...
    1 month ago

News

Major Topics

Helpful Resources

Socialize

About Us