PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURES ACT 2013

Dead-End Processing Disclosures of Wrongdoing in the South Australian Public Sector

Imagine your mother was deliberately injured in a nursing home; or, your brother was threatened & harassed by police. Imagine a teacher assaulted your child; or, a clerk at the Public Trustee negligently failed to pay your daughter’s mortgage until bank foreclosure. Imagine a rehab centre held your loved one hostage for financial incentives; or, a public servant discriminated against you with devastating consequences for no more than following government procedures for making a complaint. Would you hope for accountability or expect to see remedy & corrective action so others didn’t suffer the same injury/detriment?[1]What really happens to public servants who go all-out, rogue to intimidate, bully & harass a member of the public? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Time & time again, public officials get away with all manner of offending & misconduct (even criminal in nature) as we have seen reported to the South Australian Parliament on topics of Miscarriages of Justice, Whistleblowing, ICAC & Scheme Critical List, among many others. Complain, however, & you will quickly find yourself a target & the subject of malicious allegations &/or vexatious investigation in retaliation for your disclosures; but what happens when the rogue public servant sets out to teach you a lesson & cover up their wrongdoing or corruption? (e.g. reports you to the RSPCA for abusing your dog, even though you never abused your dog? Or spuriously reports you to Child Protection authorities, even though you never neglected your child? Or has you black listed by regulatory authorities for a breach you never committed, so you can’t run your legitimate & lawful business? Or smears & defames you with malicious & baseless accusations of wrongdoing in reprisal for your disclosure or complaint?). NADA, ZERO, ZIPPO, ZILTCH! No victim; no crime! And be totally assured the OPI will do its part to cover-up, whitewash & dead-end process your complaint so it will never see the light of day![2]

Think it doesn’t happen? Think again! This is exactly what happened when NDIS Specialist Support Co-Ordinator/Social Worker, Matilda Bawden, made several formal complaints & disclosures to appropriate authorities, including the SACAT, disclosing:

1) The neglect, improper treatment, breach of human rights & wrongful incarceration of a brain injured client at the Hampstead Centre, despite his strongest wish to go home to live independently, with NDIS supports;[3][4]

2) The vilification & abuse suffered by the client & his Next of Kin & best advocate when trying to report on the neglect & abuse suffered by the client whilst being detained against his will;[5][6][7][8]

3) An abuse of official authority, without lawful jurisdiction, by a “Guardian” from the OPA, when she decided to interfere in & impede the lawful & legitimate business of Ms Bawden servicing her NDIS client – in clear & direct violation of departmental guidelines & unequivocally stated policy.[9][10]

In reprisal for her disclosures, the OPI ignored clear evidence of maladministration & substantial wrongdoing by the Guardian. Even worse, the OPI in fact defended the Guardian’s breaches of departmental policy & abuse of authority. The OPI further justified the Guardian’s malicious retaliation against, & victimisation of, Ms Bawden for refusing to compromise her professional independence by allowing herself to be used as a “hired gun” to be manipulated, exploited & controlled by the Guardian & the OPA.[11]This served to: threaten & intimidate the client & his advocate (in anticipation of a SACAT proceeding) & to punish Bawden for vigorously representing her clients wishes & needs.

When the client’s local MP approached the Attorney General for her intervention & relief, again Ms Bawden was targeted whilst the Guardian again evaded any scrutiny. This time the Guardian’s misconduct was defended by the claim that, because Ms Bawden is not a registered NDIS provider, the Guardian determined Ms Bawden was not a suitable Specialist Support Co-Ordinator; despite the fact that Ms Bawden doesn’t have to be registered to provide legitimate & lawful services where a participant is Plan Managed.[12] In actual fact, Ms Bawden was recommended to the client very specifically for her reputation & long & established history of successfully supporting homeless people & people with disabilities towards their independence.

That the OPA, OPI & Attorney General see nothing wrong with exploiting the client’s vulnerabilities to deny him the best service provider he had (& is likely to have)[13][14][15], begs the questions:

1) By what right does any Guardian interfere in an NDIS participant’s right to choose their own service providers without a public & transparent tender process?”

2) If (in a transparent & lawfully determined tender process) a service provider is to be black-listed or deemed unsuitable, by whom & what criteria will that be determined if the client is to be, ultimately, ignored and disregarded?”.

3) By what right do public officials impugn the good name & reputation of any member of the public without a formal complaint conveyed to the person in question?”[16]

4) Officers of the Crown are expected to behave with integrity & as the “model litigant”, so by what right do public officials deny any member of the public the right to face their accuser, before subjecting them to abuse & reprisals for daring to question the conduct of public officials?”[17][18]

5) “By what lawful authority & right does the Government of South Australia deny Ms Bawden the right to earn a living by delivering her professional services & interfering with her right to be paid for the services rendered to the client under the NDIS?”.[19]

The Attorney General and the OPI have been instrumental in dead-end processing Ms Bawden’s disclosures of wrongdoing by the Guardian.

When Guardians (or any other officers of the state) can undermine or block an NDIS participant’s right to exercise “choice & control” in choosing their own service providers, the OPA lends itself heavily to being nepotistic & acting not as an independent arbiter, but with a distinct conflict of interest & against the best interests of the vulnerable person.

Public sector integrity starts with the OPI shining a spotlight onto rogue public servants & not those who report them for corruption, substantial wrongdoing, misconduct &/or maladministration. If you care about sector accountability, I would welcome your further inquiry to ensure full transparency & accountability by the OPI, ICAC, Commissioner for Public Employment & Attorney General’s office.

For further information, please contact Matilda Bawden, Mob: 0412 836 685, Email: matildabawden@gmail.com

[1]Definition: Accountability is not simply providing information or answering questions but includes setting goals, providing & reporting on results, & the visible consequences for getting things right or wrong.{Accountability in the Commonwealth Public Sector: An Exposure Draft (June 1991)}.

[2]In 1997, Ms Bawden exposed serious corruption in the Courts, Tribunals & Commissions of South Australia & was featured on the SBS Insightprogram for exposing the “Scheme Critical List”. Ms Bawden later served as National Secretary of Whistleblowers Australia & had written several speeches raised in the State Parliament on ICAC & Whistleblower Protections, amongst other portfolio matters involving public sector wrongdoing & lack of accountability.

[3]The client had met at least nine of eleven goals set for him in the preceding months of rehabilitation, including communicating his needs verbally, walking, cooking & being able to manage his personal care needs independently. Many people less capable are successfully living independently in their own homes, even in rural areas, with the supports of NDIS & without OPA interference in their plans.

[4]Ms Bawden can show irrefutable breaches of Social Work Ethics and Quality Assurance practices by Hampstead Centre, including (among other things) denying the client proper mental health treatment & support by his prior & preferred Psychologist. Instead, he was refused any psychological supports. This could have been provided under the NDIS, but Ms Bawden’s plans were sabotaged by the Guardian.

[5]The client had not met the Guardian, nor had the Guardian ever spoken with the client about his wishes or needs prior to the SACAT hearing. When she eventually did so, it was only to threaten the client that he was to have no further contact with Ms Bawden. No specific complaint was ever raised about Ms Bawden’s professional services (or fees) by any party. Emails, texts & social media posts by the client & his advocate, in fact, assert an exceptionally high level of satisfaction with Ms Bawden’s services up to that time.

[6]Text from client: 16/9/19 – “You give me mega hope being in my corner your the best thankyou matty” (sic)

[7]Facebook message from advocate, 17/10/19 – “You should be very proud of yourself your passion, empathy & knowledge is empowering [client name] and I really appreciate you and are really glad you are on our team Matty (emoticons)” (sic).

[8]To prevent Ms Bawden from having the client’s disclosures of abuse heard, the Hampstead Social Worker & Guardian ordered him to have no further contact with Ms Bawden. Her correspondences (in full compliance with Health Complaints processes recommended by the State Government) disclosing details of those concerns were completely ignored & received no reply.

[9]It is not the role of the Public Advocate as guardian to be a care provider, case manager or coordinator of [NDIS] supports. This means that OPA will not:

[10]The OPA is supposed to be the “Guardian of last resort” & has no legitimate role once an NDIS plan is in place & Support Co-Ordiantor is appointed.

[11]The Guardian falsely accused Bawden of a “deficient” Service Agreement & claimed to have reported her to the NDIS Quality & Safeguards Commission (Q&SC), despite Ms Bawden having committed no violation or transgression of any NDIS rules/guidelines whatsoever & no known investigations launched by the Q&SC against Ms Bawden. The OPI did not require the Guardian to substantiate her vexatious & malicious accusation & suffered no consequence for this gross act of victimisation & reprisal, despite the fact that the NDIS does not prescribe in legislation, policy or guidelines any preferred format for Service Agreements.Moreover, Bawden’s Service Agreement was developed in consultation with the NDIS, Q&SC, plan managers & other service providers.

[12]Not being registered with the NDIS does not mean that the client is receiving an inferior service any more than an independent legal firm is considered inferior to one that is funded by Legal Aid when representing a defendant.

[13]Ms Bawden is accessible & provides services 24/7, including weekends & public holidays; making her more accessible than any Specialist Support Co-Ordinator working for a registered provider.

[14]Ms Bawden had spent many hours getting to know the client & his advocate long before the Guardian even came onto the scene. The Guardian actually lied to the SACAT about her efforts to contact the client before the SACAT hearing & that was obvious by her stuttering, awkwardness & discomfort when confronted by the advocate about this shameful failure at the hearing.

[15]The Guardian asserted in a meeting that the client couldn’t return to live independently as he had insufficient funds in his NDIS plan. This was actually not true, as Ms Bawden was well able to work within the small & limited budget (& despite it).

[16]Ms Bawden has had no opportunity to hear of concerns or defend her practice. Being an unregistered (i.e. “independent”) provider of services is not an accusation; it’s a statement of fact. Many thousands of people successfully & effectively provide services to NDIS clients who are plan managed.

[17]Ms Bawden was up-front about her criticisms of the Guardian & extended to her the courtesy of raising her complaints about the Guardian’s misconduct directly with her.

[18]The Guardian accused Ms Bawden of a “deficient” Service Agreement (without any proof) immediately after Ms Bawden wrote:

Afternoon [Guardian],

I am just wanting to clarify your request before I send back the amended Service Agreement, as I am well aware how other agencies draft Service Agreements and invariably, they are broad, vague and generic enough to allow flexibility. The micro-detail is negotiated with clients, as the plan progresses.

However, before I consider obliging, I am seeking your reassurance that I will not be impeded from properly executing my professional duties and will adequately be able to liaise and implement necessary support with services providers of [client & advocate’s] choosing to best suit his needs?

I need to know that I will be accountable solely to [client & advocate], without impediment, and ensure I am able to perform this role with complete professional autonomy & respect. In short, I need your assurance that we will be working on the same team?

Can you provide such assurance?

Warmly

Mat

[19]The Guardian has blocked Ms Bawden’s capacity to be properly paid for services already rendered to the client by bullying the plan manager into not paying out on over $2000 in outstanding invoices, even though the OPA has no jurisdiction over the plan manager.