Jozef Imrich, name worthy of Kafka, has his finger on the pulse of any irony of interest and shares his findings to keep you in-the-know with the savviest trend setters and infomaniacs.
''I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center.''
-Kurt Vonnegut
Email Copy Intercepted mail inside Parliament House, a sacked whistleblower and a mystery senator - the Federal Court case of ACD13/2019 is a tale of intrigue.
But we can't share the full details, as the names of key individuals - including DPS officials and a senior Labor senator - are subject to a suppression order.
As controversy about the secretive department continues, The Canberra Times has made inquiries to seek the order's lifting.
This masthead, which wants to report on the full details of the case in which there is significant public interest, has approached all parties to the matter, including the applicant known as ACD13/2019 and the respondents, Secretary Robert Stefanic, then deputy secretary Cate Saunders and then first assistant secretary Robert Brigden.
Former deputy secretary Cate Saunders, left, Secretary Robert Stefanic and Acting Secretary Jaala Hinchcliffe, far right. Pictures The Canberra Times
The solicitor representing Mr Stefanic, Ms Saunders and Mr Brigden was not able to obtain their consent before this story was published, several days after the request was made, and direct attempts were unsuccessful.
The Labor senator, who cannot be named, also did not give their consent and did not respond to follow-up queries seeking to confirm that the answer was "no".
This masthead has been unable to obtain consent from Rob Stefanic to a proposed lifting of a Federal Court suppression order. Picture by Keegan Carroll
The only person who agreed to give their consent was ACD13/2019, the person who made a disclosure under the PID Act and was sacked after mail he had attempted to send to a Labor senator's staffer came into the possession of top officials.
Acting DPS Secretary Jaala Hinchcliffe told a Senate Estimates hearing on Monday when asked about the matter: "I understand that our lawyers have been approached, and that we're going through consultation processes at the moment."
One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts asked her: "What does DPS have to hide, that you want to keep under suppression? What is it?"
"I have nothing to add," Ms Hinchcliffe said.
Acting Secretary Jaala Hinchcliffe said DPS lawyers were engaged in 'consultations' after The Canberra Times request. Picture by Keegan Carroll
Senator Roberts asked the acting secretary on Monday: "I understand that Mr Robert Brigden instructed solicitors in [the case of] ACD-13 that Rob Stefanic had, quote, 'no involvement in intercepting a letter from a DPS employee'. Is that what was instructed?"
"I don't have any knowledge of this matter, to be able to provide you with any further information," Ms Hinchcliffe said.
Senator Roberts said he understood that "the facts showed the contents of the envelope were taken and shown to Mr Stefanic" and "were then kept in Mr Stefanic's safe", contrary to Mr Brigden's statement "that he wasn't involved". "Is that true?" the senator asked.
Ms Hinchcliffe took the question on notice, saying: "I don't have any awareness of this matter. It occurred before I came to DPS."
On October 15, 2018, the envelope containing an attempted external public interest disclosure arrived at Parliament House.
It was sent by the whistleblower, a security officer who had worked in Parliament House for two decades and to whom the court gave the pseudonym ACD-13.
He had been in contact with a staffer in a senior Labor senator's office, who asked him to send it ahead of the coming week's estimates hearing.
The envelope allegedly contained sensitive information that would provide additional information not on the public record, which could embarrass agency heads - and the government - about a series of high-profile DPS blunders.
But the envelope containing the information never made it to the senator's office.
It was instead opened by someone that Monday and examined by senior officials who combed through the documents wearing rubber gloves, later handing it to Mr Stefanic for safe-keeping in his office.
The two senior officials claimed they were trying to determine who the envelope was intended for and were not aware the sender was attempting to send an external disclosure, even though both were aware that ACD-13's mobile number was on the back of the envelope written under "sender".
The Canberra Times believes the full details of the case are worthy of public scrutiny, in the interests of transparency and in light of the persistent issues reported by staff working for DPS, a department that is shielded from Freedom of Information laws
The nation’s senators are taking full advantage of their last chance for the year to quiz ministers and mandarins in Senate estimates.
Potential conflict of interest
Parliamentary Services boss Rob Stefanic was in a close personal relationship with his former deputy, Cate Saunders, but failed to record the potential conflict of interest in writing, according to the acting secretary of the department, Jaala Hinchcliffe.
Parliamentary Services acting secretary Jaala Hinchcliffe told a Senate estimates hearing on Monday that the department did not know when Stefanic would return from leave and that he remained on full pay.
Parliamentary Services acting secretary Jaala Hinchcliffe told a Senate estimates hearing on Monday that the department did not know when Stefanic would return from leave and that he remained on full pay.CREDIT: ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN
Hinchcliffe also confirmed that Stefanic took leave on October 9, six days after the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) executed warrants at Parliament House, though she did not suggest the two matters were linked.
Hinchcliffe told a Senate estimates hearing on Monday that the department did not know when Stefanic would return from leave and that he remained on full pay.
“I confirm that I have asked the National Anti-Corruption Commission whether the information I am providing in this opening statement will impact or impede their investigations. The NACC has advised me that it will not,” Hinchcliffe said.
“The National Anti-Corruption Commission attended Parliament House on the third of October this year in relation to an ongoing investigation. I can confirm that the NACC executed warrants on the Department of Parliamentary Services.
“Any questions about this activity and any investigation that the NACC might be undertaking should be referred to the NACC as I am conscious that discussing matters may inadvertently identify persons of interests, prematurely damage reputations and/or compromise an individual’s right to impartial adjudication.”
Hinchcliffe was asked a series of questions by senators including Liberal Jane Hume and One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts about the raid and the circumstances under which Stefanic had taken leave, but declined to comment further.
In estimates in May, Stefanic stated that he had not been in a relationship with Saunders when he became her boss. Saunders was Stefanic’s deputy before moving to Services Australia. After six months with Services Australia, Saunders reportedly left after being offered a $315,000 incentive payment to retire from the public service.
Hinchcliffe said on Monday during the Senate hearing that the department he engaged Fiona Roughly, SC, to conduct an independent fact-finding investigation into her department’s role in the incentive-to-retire payment, following an internal complaint.
And under questioning from Hume, Hinchcliffe said her understanding was that Stefanic had first made a verbal declaration about a potential conflict of interest to the Australian Public Service Commissioner in August 2022.
It was not until June 2023 that Stefanic made a similar declaration to parliament’s presiding officers, Speaker Milton Dick and President Sue Lines, despite the fact he had been required to do so in writing in February of that year.
“I understand that the declaration went to [a] close personal relationship with the former deputy secretary,” Hinchcliffe said, adding later there was “no record of the conversation”.
Hume replied: “So we’ve got no record of the declarations … we’ve only got recollections. We’ve got inconsistent stories about who knew what and when. We have an inconsistent and at best, patchy record of when the department was told about a secondment for the deputy secretary. Do you think then that it’s acceptable … the record keeping is so inadequate?”
Hinchcliffe said it would be a focus “for us at DPS to ensure that we have got our record-keeping policies and framework set properly”.
