Australia Day honours for the dishonourable: the Public Service Medal

While many recipients of Australia Day Awards are good citizens and deserving, others are not.

It is scandalous that public officials are nominated for the Public Service Award each year and the process is shrouded in secrecy. Neither the nominators nor the nominees are made public before January 26th, so the general public have no opportunity to lodge objections or allegations of corrupt conduct of these senior public servants.

Some recent recipients of Public Service Medals are so undeserving as to bring the whole selection process into disrepute. In 2009, for example, a senior public servant was honoured while a current complaint was before a misconduct unit, which included accompanying documents identifying possible crimes under the following sections of the N.S.W. Crimes Act:

Crimes Act 1900 Sect. 327 (Perjury: no statute of limitations)
Sect. 330 (false statement on oath)
Sect. 335 (false statements in evidence)
Sect. 336 (false entry on a public register)
Sect. 337 (false instruments by public officer)
Sect. 317 (fabricates evidence)
Sect. 318 (using false official instrument to pervert the course of justice)
Sect. 319 (act or omission intending to pervert the course of justice)

This public servant had given false and misleading evidence in court against a whistleblower in order to ensure the person failed in their application for compensation. There was conspiracy between her and another high ranking public servant to pervert the course of justice. This conspiracy is not a figment of someone’s imagination, it is demonstrated by the documents. If the N.S.W. government had any genuine concerns about its employees committing perjury and other crimes, they’d employ an independent and honest investigator such as former Deputy Police Commissioner David Madden to look into it and interview all parties. But it seems the Labor government encourages such criminal behaviour if its inaction on many matters is any indicator. The Serious Misconduct Unit has no interest in investigating further and has written the matter off. One wonders just what they consider to be ‘serious misconduct’.

The “honoured public servant” was a regular user of HealthQuest, the notorious N.S.W. Government Medical Office, which was set up to circumvent unfair dismissal laws, put a stop to workers compensation claims and put an end to the careers of public servants who made complaints of nefarious conduct or who disagreed with managers. HealthQuest was, and possibly still is, staffed with psychiatrists and psychologists who were willing to supply a false statement in order that public servants who rocked the boat could be either banned from their workplace for years at a time, or forcibly medically retired on the grounds of bogus diagnoses.

Senior public servants in N.S.W. are all aware of the willingness of HealthQuest doctors to do what is required and make false statements about victims of this serious breach of human and civil rights. Bribes are paid to HealthQuest, which is a statutory body, disguised as ‘fees for service’. The more ‘difficult’ the public servant the higher the bribe; for example, $3,000 to keep a whistleblower out of the workplace permanently. No genuine medical examination would cost $3,000.

If the Australia Day Awards Committee were really looking into the history of nominees, the most important step would be to find out if the nominated public servant had ever made use of HealthQuest to solve an industrial problem. If the nominated public servant had ever abused their position in this way, they should be ineligible for an award. But of course, the Australia Day Awards Committee only exists to promulgate the idea that the Labor government is doing a marvellous job. They are not there to exclude the corrupt and dishonest from the awarding of the Public Service Medal.

It is very likely, on the evidence of whistleblowers from many branches of the Public Service, that most, if not all senior public servants in N.S.W. have at some time committed crimes that would be punishable with a jail term in any civilized country. These crimes against humanity are defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 5.

* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 8.

* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 12.

* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Such crimes by senior public servants are not isolated or sporadic events but have been part of N.S.W. government policy. The International Criminal Court speaks of crimes that constitute a serious attack on human dignity. "HealthQuesting" N.S.W. state government whistleblowers has been and continues to be part of a widespread systematic practice of torture and persecution of whistleblowers which is condoned by the N.S.W. government. A senior public servant who perpetrates such crimes is safe in the knowledge that there will be no repercussions on them, no genuine investigation into their atrocious behaviour.

In Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald, John Garnaut wrote about corruption in China:

"Last year Liu's parents lodged a complaint at the local government's petitions office. Citizens are officially encouraged to take their grievances to this unique Chinese institution. The design flaw of the petitions system is a fundamental one: the offices are typically run by the same officials that the petitioners are complaining about."

John, these kinds of offices are not unique to China. There are many in New South Wales. The Ombudsman. Serious Misconduct Units of the Public Service. The Independent Commission Against Corruption. The courts and tribunals, manned by members with union or Labor backgrounds. The Anti-Discrimination Board. John Garnaut is quick to condemn Chinese government policy while conveniently overlooking what is happening in his own backyard.

John continues: "Yu Jianrong, a scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, surveyed 632 Beijing petitioners and found only one case that had been satisfactorily resolved." Well, John, perhaps you will be interested in surveying some of the petitioners of New South Wales who have taken their concerns about the government and its departments to the ICAC, the Ombudsman, the Police Integrity Commission or the Serious Misconduct Units. We are aware of many complaints to these offices and of only one or two satisfactorily resolved cases.

There was no effective remedy for the public servant targeted by the ‘honoured public servant’ mentioned above. The court case was a set-up with a pre-arranged result. At the time, HealthQuest had an ‘appeals panel’ that consisted of a secretary sitting at a desk. There was no-one else on that panel. The secretary would rubber-stamp the forced retirement after a few weeks’ delay to make it appear that some kind of investigation was happening.

The attacks on the public servant’s honour and reputation by the ‘honoured public servant’ continue to affect that public servant and his/her children to this day, even though the public servant was permitted to return to work following a number of petitions by his/her supporters, which included Ian McDougall of Justice Action, Sue Williams, Journalist and Franca Arena, then a Member of Parliament, for which support he/she is very grateful.

Under the United Nations definition of torture, this public servant has been subjected to years of it in the form of psychological torture caused by the malicious and false statements about the person, who had only attempted to protect children who were being abused by a popular and influential local person.

This is the U.N. definition of torture:

For the purposes of this Convention,
the term “torture” means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes
as obtaining from him or a third person information
or a confession, punishing him for an act
he or a third person has committed
or is suspected of having committed,
or intimidating or coercing him or a third person,
or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence
of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

The ‘honoured public servant’ employed medical personnel as instruments of repression and punishment in order to help cover up a situation which involved a number of protected disclosures made by the victim. This compounds a deep affront to human rights with deception and fraud, such deception continuing during the course of a court hearing in 2002.

The ‘honoured public servant’ has betrayed the trust of society and breached her most basic ethical obligations as a public servant.

And so the Australia Day Public Service Honours continue to be a farce. There is no transparency in the process. Chicanery, opacity and cronyism are rife. There are labyrinthine connections between those involved in nominating the public servant for an award and the recipient. State Labor government officials and government departments have the means to threaten the public and the press when they attempt to reveal information which should be of concern.

Clearly the powerful are living beyond the law, and are even rewarded for their efforts with military-style medals which they are encouraged to wear on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day.

A complaint has duly been sent to the Australia Day Awards Committee. We will take an interest in their response, if any, and if it is unsatisfactory, we will hold our own public inquiry here at Australia’s independent media centre, since there is no office in N.S.W. willing to do so - just as in China, which we have the audacity to accuse of corruption.


This same person is responsible for the mess which has become known as Carenne Gate. There are allegations of the Minister lying to parliament, threats, lies, intimidation, involvement of NSW Police, fraud, etc.

Visit for more information.

I am pleased that someone has finally spoken out about the disreputable Public Servants who are given Australia Day Awards. Awarding these meritless individuals throws the whole system of awards into disrepute. They are in fact utterly meaningless to those of use who know about the conduct of unworthy recipients.

The director of the public service dept, where I worked, was awarded for his services to the arts. This same director was the officer whose conduct was reported by the media for unlawful dismissal case and sexual harassment during his time as senior NSW Public Employee. The media reported a few years ago that the management of my former workplace was hostile and staff too frightened and traumatised to speak to SMH reporters about a proposed merger of 2 govt. institutions.

I worked in the Public Service and was assaulted at work for asking for my long service leave - I was a Public Employee for 13.5 years. I was stalked by investigation officers hired by the government insurer (GIO) to investigate my workers' compensation case. I had lodged a workers' compensation case because I became ill as a result of workplace injury.

He obstructed me in my attempts to resolve my genuine report of workplace assault, bullying and subsequent stalking. He did so when he refused to grant me rehabilitation, sick leave or special sick leave when I was injured as a result of workplace assault. Sadly, I am not the only employee to be subjected to this inhumane treatment.

I was unlawfully sent to HealthQuest purporting to be government medical officer and rehabilitation provider. HealthQuest is not an NSW accredited rehabilitation provider. I never granted paid rehabilitation. The management ensured the process of rehabilitation never commenced even when it was requested by a judge during the workers' compensation process. Despite the fact that reports from independent investigators, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and NSW Police stated my workplace was hostile and it was unsafe for me to be returned to work. They even had recommendations for removing the hostility and making the workplace safe.

The director obstructed the efforts of these organisations to gain meaningful and prompt justice for me. He refused enact his duty-of-care when these reports and NSW Police advised the workplace was dangerous. The danger caused by hostile and aggressive workplace management practices and workplace culture. They showed that all employees were at risk because of this. These reports were ignored and disappeared. The negligence and reckless indifference to humanity continued.

Thanks to a former Police Commissioner I was referred to the NSW Police Restorative Justice dept my complaint was thoroughly investigated and witnesses interviewed. Their statements confirmed my report.

Because of these independent reports and the NSW Police intervention I was awarded workers' compensation and victim's compensation. I also successfully obtained a restraining order stopping the employer's representatives from harassing me at my home and disturbing the peace under the guise of delivering urgent paperwork. The magistrate required the practice to cease and the employer to use Australia Post or my union to contact me. This practice cease but the employer found other more incideous ways of intimidating me. They did this under workers' compensation legislation and HealthQuest.

The director had refused to enact his powers to see that this sick and injured employee damaged on his beat received my full sickness and rehabilitation entitlements.

He commenced a prompt cover up under the guise of investigation of my grievance. My human rights were totally ignored. I was further traumatised and tortured by the HealthQuest process. I was unlawfully sent there for medical assessment. My employment was contracted to my employer but my body belongs to me. My employer cannot demand that I be subjected to medical examination. Only I can give consent for medical examination. My employer is a third party in the HealthQuest arrangement - the party that uses NSW taxpayers money to torture employees.

I refused to give consent to be medically/psychologically examined. This is acknowledge my HealthQuest's examining shrink who proceeded to examine me. This is unlawful examination assault a criminal offence. The door of the examination room was locked. This is unlawful imprisonment. I was not even offered a glass of water in the 3-4 hours I was held there. My observer was refused to accompany me. Any person being interviewed by state bureaucracies is allowed an observer. This is part of transparent and responsible government. Even those charged with criminal offences are allowed a lawyer when interviewed. I was the victim of assault.

The reports management sent to that interview were kept secret from me. This is not transparent and open. They only became available to me years later via FOI. This breaches transparency laws and guidelines. The reports were false and misleading purporting to be a public record of my employment. They are not a fair and accurate record of my time in the Public Service. This is a breach of the NSW Archives Act and NSW Records Act. Failure to provide rehabilitation to sick workers is a breach of the NSW Rehabilitation laws and rights of sick workers. The paperwork generated by the employer and signed by the director as true by the director. The reports were written to enable HealthQuest to make a decision that would overturn my genuine medical certificates written by health care professional with a duty-of-care to me. It enabled the employer to place me on unlawful Leave Without Pay. It stopped me from received my full wages, leaves and superannuation. The director knowingly committed a fraud on the taxpayers of Australia. The only investment for this person in on the State's Pleasure not an Australia Day Award.

My employer's even attempted to commence performance management while I was injured and before the process had been agreed to and commenced at my workplace. The director then threatened me with disciplinary action [dismissal]if I did not return to work outside the office of my attacker. Naturally, I declined the offer. I value my health and sanity.

When I applied to have my employment status recognised as sick leave the NSW Industrial Commission handed down a decision stating that my employment status would not change because my employer disagreed with medical reports. I understand that the Sick Leave act expressly states it is the role and responsibility of treating doctors to determine if staff are sick. My treating doctors confirmed this, as did Centrlink's doctors and even my employer's doctors agreed I was sick. This director's unqualified opinion was allowed to overturn due process and he has received and Australia Day Award.

Yet, the NSW Industrial Commission handed down a judgement in my case stating that because the director disagreed with my doctors I was to remain on Leave Without Pay.

He was aided and abetted by human resource management, my union and Attorney-General's dept through Crown Solicitors and NSW industrial commission. The Workers' compensation action was used to access insurance money to provide unlawful surveillance for 3.5 years. The director requested GIO, their insurer, to provide surveillance through the services of Websters Investigations. I think workers' compensation money can be put to better use. Through the court process they obtained access to my financial and medical records as well as the names of my witnesses. This is not a two-way street neither I nor my lawyers had access to their financial records. This is at the least unconscionable at worst bullying and/or intimidation and harassment.

Doctors at HealthQuest provided their client, my employer, with false medical reports claim I was fit to return to work. HealthQuest and the employer have a client/provider status. The employer provides the funds while HealthQuest provides the documentation. HealthQuest does not have a duty-of-care to me thus the doctor does harm the sick and injured in breach of their professional codes of practice. These false documents were used as evidence to overturn my genuine industrial claim for wages, rehabilitation and superannuation.

I was not awarded my proper wages and superannuation for 3.5 years. The superannuation is worth 7-8-9% of of my salary during that 3.5 years period and had future value of 15 years compounded interest. It is worth a lot of money to me.

In fact, the employer ceased employer's contribution to superannuation SASS after the date of my first appointment at HealthQuest in June. I did not attend until I had obtained further legal and union advice in July. So the true reason for HealthQuest becomes quite clear as the employer could only cease contributions if I was on Leave Without Pay. Employer's superannuation contribution ceased in June. I only discovered that I was on Leave without pay when wages office returned some of my super deductions to me at end of financial year because of LWOP which had been backed dated to November the previous year. They had returned my November employee contribution as I had not been on duty for a full month. I was formally advised I had been placed on LWOP on 1st September retrospectively. I had no say in the director's decision and effectively denied any right of reply by NSW Industrial Commission.

In order for my employer get away with this they were aided and abetted by others. The human resources staff acted on orders from the director who relied on their recommendations to stop my rehabilitation process.

They have to-date successfully got away with not paying me. They did not act alone. Many Govt. departments were involved in the cover up. I followed my issues with all necessary reporting departments because of the fraud and corruption. These included State Superannuation Board, Minister of Health because HealthQuest was involved, Ministry for the Arts, Minister for the Arts, Premier's Dept., Attorney-General, Auditor-General, NSW Industrial Commission, ICAC, Ombudsman, Anti-Discrimination Board, Public Service union and the rest. But all these very good Labor boys and girls preferred to stay safely in their club so they one day will be granted an Australia Day Award for their 'services'.

The failure to acknowledge my genuine injuries and illness left me without wages. I was unable to resign as I had commenced workers' compensation and attempting to commence rehabilitation. I became financially destitute but employed and became a Centrelink client on one of the lowest levels of welfare - Sickness Benefit. My injuries exacerbated by the mishandling, delays and cover-up in resolving my issues. I have never returned to full time work. The director responsible for this state of affairs received full wages, superannuation and an Australia Day Award. The Government players have received promotions from their cronies and ensured ongoing employment and the full superannuation package.

Let the nominations for awards be made public before the event. Let the public comment on the nominations and those under a cloud be removed until their names are cleared and they prove worthy of merit. Give Australia Day Awards to the truly deserving. Remove awards from the unworthy and place their names on a wall of shame.

NSW Ombudsman provides Mallone family with the Final report.

Maladministration found.

Mallone's owed an apology by Canterbury City Council

Ombudsman finds errs, contradictions, no investigations having occurred, etc even prior to the Mallone involvement that Mallone's have aways claimed was the cause of the Supreme Court action taken again.

General Manager Jim Montague submitted it was difficult to imagine what conduct of the Council would have been satisfactory to Mr Mallone in 2005.

The General Manager, Mayor, Councillors and MP should be thoroughly disgusted and ashamed with themselves. Do these people know what their role is?

The Ombudsman has now advised this General Manager that the conduct Mr Mallone would have been satisfied with would have been PROPER conduct rather than IMPROPER conduct. Post 2005, Mr Mallone expected that this Council would not respond to complaints on the issue by dishonestly stating that the matter was investigated when the NSW Ombudsman finds no evidence of any investigation at anytime from 2003 onwards.

Summary of mid 2003 - mid 2006
+ Improper conduct

Summary of 2006:
+ General Manager in charge of this Council receives Public Service Medal.
+ 79yo Mrs Mallone dragged into the Supreme Court and left with a legal bill of near $200,000 and a $40,000 contribution to the cliff works.

Summary of 2007 - 2009
+ Council General Manager (PSM) advises over and over and over again that the matter has been investigated.

Summary of 2010 NSW Ombudsman findings:
+ Improper conduct, failures, errs, contradictions
+ It finds no evidence of any Council investigation being conducted.

A minor snipet from the NSW Ombudsman report (investigation into conduct of Canterbury City Council)

Mr Mallone informed this office there was a meeting held in the General Manager's office with members of his family on 5 Dec 2007. In response to our preliminary inquires, Mr Lenard (Manager Corporate Projects) stated that Mrs Mallone, Mr Mark Mallone,....Mr Robert Davidson and Mr Jauncey and the General Manager were in attendance......

Council has no record of the discussions or advice given at that meeting.

During a visit to the Council on 30 Sept 2008, Mr Montague explained to our officer that he had never met Mrs Mallone. He also said he was a busy person and because of the number of meetings he attended, he did not always have time to keep detailed records.

In his submission on the summary evidence, he advised that he had erred in advising that he had not met Mrs Mallone.

Mr Jim Montague General Manager Canterbury City Council honored with a Public Service Medal in 2006.

One of 18 recommendations in the Ombudsman report an APOLOGY to Mrs Mallone.

Mrs Mallone is now indebt near $250,000 due to the incompetent handling of matters that commenced in 2003 (two full years before Mrs Mallone became aware of the issue in 2005 via her friendly neighbours, who then sued her one year later in 2006).

Mr Montague submitted that it was difficult to imagine what conduct of the Council would have been satisfactory to Mr Mallone in 2005 other than it repairing the cliff face.

Let us explain in short what will appear in the next post that would explain the statement above from Mr Montague.

Mr Mallone sends an email to Council on 6 Aug 2005, then again on 11 Aug 2005 because it could not be found, it then went from one person to the next, to the next, to the next and so on. Then in Feb 2006 a Mallone rep phones to hear the file was here last year, then disappeared and reappeared yesterday...but it doesn't matter about that the issue is the problem of Mrs Mallone.

So is it really that difficult for Mr Montague to imagine what conduct of the Council would have been satisfactory for the Mallone's? The NSW Ombudsman had no difficulty imagining what Mrs Mallone and her family required.

Again, Mr Jim Montague General Manager Canterbury City Council honored with a Public Service Medal in 2006.

The above barely touches the surface of the contents of the NSW Ombudsman report.

The Mallone's require public support, not just the NSW Ombudsman and Mrs Mallone's local paper who has placed her on Page 1 twice now.

Mrs Mallone broke down in tears during that meeting in the General Manager's office.
How did he or could he err that he had never met her and while he was under investigation?
How often do 80 year old women enter the Councils General Manager's office and break down in tears?

Again, Mr Jim Montague General Manager Canterbury City Council honored with a Public Service Medal in 2006.

The Public Service Medal, established in 1989, is awarded twice a year by the Governor-General.

It recognises those people who have consistently performed demanding jobs to the highest standards and have made a major contribution to the Australian community. The Public Service Medal is part of the official Australian system of honours and awards, and was established to recognise employees of the Australian Government and state, territory and local governments who have given outstanding service.

Outstanding service could be shown through:

  • service excellence to the public, or to external or internal clients; 
  • innovation in programme, project or policy development
  • leadership, including as a member of a team; or
  • the achievement of more efficient processes, improved productivity or better service delivery.

The NSW Ombudsman failed this Council and this PSM awarded General Manager, regarding issues that occurred from 2003 to 2010 that also related to negligent decisions of at least the last 20 plus years!

What a shame that PSM recipients such as this, bring all recipients into disrepute.

I want to scrutinise it...we will force the bastards to be honest through public shaming since they're not volunteering.

Will that occur whilst these public servants use the public purse to intimidate and threaten the people and sites who are exposing them?


Council lawyers have all Mallone gripes removed from


Do you not also question what happened to - This was a site that held some major discussions regarding the events of Mrs Mallone and the incompetent/corrupt Council. It named and shamed all those involved in the maladministration and attempted coverup.

For those unable to get there before the site came down. It began with

NSW Ombudsman gives notice to Mayor Robert Furolo. This topic remains at

Search around and the puzzle becomes more evident.

Welcome back Indy!
I too am very concerned that these sorts of awards are handed out to those who do not deserve them. It cheapens the entire process and humiliates those who honestly earned them.

The entire Order of Australia nomination process is devoid of transparency and accountability. Corruption was exposed in the UK awards and reforms occurred. The time is long overdue for reform before these awards descend into disrepute.

NSW Ombudsman delivers its verdict on conduct of Canterbury City Canterbury and its PSM awarded General Manager.

Not good for the Council nor its General Manager. Mallone's owed an apology.

More details in reply about 5 posts above...