Au fascist police state
NIT FEATURE: Sedition laws part two: Clem van der Weegan's story
Issue 94
NATIONAL, Issue 94, 2005: The continuation of NIT's main feature... Now, finally, to the story of Clem van der Weegen. As whistleblowers go, he probably tops the list in 2005 for public servants who’ve dumped a bucket on their former employer.
On February 3 this year, he appeared before the federal parliament at the Senate Select Committee into the Administration of Indigenous Affairs (the inquiry into the abolition of ATSIC).
Mr van der Weegen was a member of the NSW Police Service for 14 years and worked as a police prosecutor and a lecturer at the NSW Police Academy in Goulburn.
More recently, he was employed within the ATSIS Investigations and Compliance Branch (the old ATSIC Fraud Awareness Unit).
What he had to say was explosive.
Mr van der Weegen told parliament the fraud unit was being used to target specific Aboriginal leaders - chief among them former ATSIC Deputy ‘Sugar’ Ray Robinson - and he described the methods used by investigators as “perplexing” and “disturbing”.
He also alleged that Indigenous Affairs Minister, Amanda Vanstone had mislead parliament on March 9, 2004 when she claimed an organisation once headed by former ATSIC Deputy, ‘Sugar’ Ray Robinson had cashed cheques without adequate receipts and supporting documentation.
Four days prior to Senator Vanstone’s parliamentary claims, ATSIS investigators discovered evidence that supported Mr Robinson’s versions of events.
An email from a senior ATSIS official warned: “In the light of the Parliamentary interest in this matter... and the media interest, we need to be extremely careful that if the Minister or ATSIS chooses to say anything in public, that what is said cannot be construed, now or later, as misleading.”
It apparently never found its way to the Minister’s office and if it did, it was ignored.
You might imagine that Mr van der Weegen’s claims - that ATSIS resources were being used to target a political enemy of the Howard government and that Robinson had been unfairly done over in parliament - might spark an investigation of their own.
But rather than probe Mr van der Weegen’s claims, the Australian Federal Police instead investigated Mr van der Weegen.
After giving his evidence, Mr van der Weegen moved from just outside Canberra to Queensland to further his university studies and gain a Doctorate in Philosophy.
Agents from the Australian Federal Police followed him north.
“I heard the federal police were looking for me. I’d like to know why,” Mr van der Weegen told NIT last week.
At least one person among the people who now associate with Mr van der Weegen in Brisbane was approached by police. He was asked questions about Mr van der Weegen and warned not to mention the approach to the man at the centre of the investigation.
Mr van der Weegen has no idea how many other friends or associates were approached by police and interviewed, and to this day, he’s never been personally contacted by investigators.
“It’s unsettling when things like this aren’t followed up, and you don’t know what they’re for,” he said.
“The only thing I can think of is the evidence I gave to the Senate... which was given under parliamentary privilege.
“I said what I had to say because I had left the public service and was giving evidence that was in the public interest.
“These comments should be taken in the context of what is happening to other public servants in relation to the leaking of information.”
Harry Evans, Clerk of the federal Senate says it’s by no means unprecedented for someone to give evidence under parliamentary privilege only to find themselves under investigation.
“It’s happened quite a few times,” Mr Evans says.
“Certainly [Mr van der Weegen’s] evidence is completely protected by parliamentary privilege, which means he can’t be sued, prosecuted, cross-examined... he can’t be ‘got at’ through any legal process even if he’s breached the Australian Public Service Act.
“The police know very well they can’t use the parliamentary evidence in any way. But that doesn’t stop them from investigating the [evidence] to find other evidence of a leak.
“There’s been a good deal of political controversy about these sorts of investigations... questions in the Senate estimates process and so on.
“But the federal government does have a policy of having the federal police investigate every leak of information.”
Every leak? Surely not?
“Well, every unauthorised leak,” Mr Evans adds.
As for Mr van der Weegen, he’s left to wonder whether or not the AFP will ever knock on his door and face him; why he was being investigated in the first place; and whether the serious allegations he levelled against government officials and one minister will ever be followed up.
He doesn’t even want to contemplate how the new sedition laws might be used.
“You know, the only time I ever felt as if I was actually living in a democracy was when I was giving evidence in the Senate,” he said.
• Other stories in the NIT sedition feature are listed below, including the first part of this two part story (the top related link). You can also click on the other related links below to go straight to additional sedition feature stories.
• SEE ALSO: You have the right to remain silent
• SEE ALSO: The 'official' leak and the power of the press
• SEE ALSO: Wadeye rolled out welcome for 'Top Man'
• SEE ALSO: Time running out for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy?
Related Links
http://www.nit.com.au/story.aspx?id=6131
http://www.nit.com.au/news/story.aspx?id=6128
http://www.nit.com.au/news/story.aspx?id=6130
Issue 94
NATIONAL, Issue 94, 2005: The continuation of NIT's main feature... Now, finally, to the story of Clem van der Weegen. As whistleblowers go, he probably tops the list in 2005 for public servants who’ve dumped a bucket on their former employer.
On February 3 this year, he appeared before the federal parliament at the Senate Select Committee into the Administration of Indigenous Affairs (the inquiry into the abolition of ATSIC).
Mr van der Weegen was a member of the NSW Police Service for 14 years and worked as a police prosecutor and a lecturer at the NSW Police Academy in Goulburn.
More recently, he was employed within the ATSIS Investigations and Compliance Branch (the old ATSIC Fraud Awareness Unit).
What he had to say was explosive.
Mr van der Weegen told parliament the fraud unit was being used to target specific Aboriginal leaders - chief among them former ATSIC Deputy ‘Sugar’ Ray Robinson - and he described the methods used by investigators as “perplexing” and “disturbing”.
He also alleged that Indigenous Affairs Minister, Amanda Vanstone had mislead parliament on March 9, 2004 when she claimed an organisation once headed by former ATSIC Deputy, ‘Sugar’ Ray Robinson had cashed cheques without adequate receipts and supporting documentation.
Four days prior to Senator Vanstone’s parliamentary claims, ATSIS investigators discovered evidence that supported Mr Robinson’s versions of events.
An email from a senior ATSIS official warned: “In the light of the Parliamentary interest in this matter... and the media interest, we need to be extremely careful that if the Minister or ATSIS chooses to say anything in public, that what is said cannot be construed, now or later, as misleading.”
It apparently never found its way to the Minister’s office and if it did, it was ignored.
You might imagine that Mr van der Weegen’s claims - that ATSIS resources were being used to target a political enemy of the Howard government and that Robinson had been unfairly done over in parliament - might spark an investigation of their own.
But rather than probe Mr van der Weegen’s claims, the Australian Federal Police instead investigated Mr van der Weegen.
After giving his evidence, Mr van der Weegen moved from just outside Canberra to Queensland to further his university studies and gain a Doctorate in Philosophy.
Agents from the Australian Federal Police followed him north.
“I heard the federal police were looking for me. I’d like to know why,” Mr van der Weegen told NIT last week.
At least one person among the people who now associate with Mr van der Weegen in Brisbane was approached by police. He was asked questions about Mr van der Weegen and warned not to mention the approach to the man at the centre of the investigation.
Mr van der Weegen has no idea how many other friends or associates were approached by police and interviewed, and to this day, he’s never been personally contacted by investigators.
“It’s unsettling when things like this aren’t followed up, and you don’t know what they’re for,” he said.
“The only thing I can think of is the evidence I gave to the Senate... which was given under parliamentary privilege.
“I said what I had to say because I had left the public service and was giving evidence that was in the public interest.
“These comments should be taken in the context of what is happening to other public servants in relation to the leaking of information.”
Harry Evans, Clerk of the federal Senate says it’s by no means unprecedented for someone to give evidence under parliamentary privilege only to find themselves under investigation.
“It’s happened quite a few times,” Mr Evans says.
“Certainly [Mr van der Weegen’s] evidence is completely protected by parliamentary privilege, which means he can’t be sued, prosecuted, cross-examined... he can’t be ‘got at’ through any legal process even if he’s breached the Australian Public Service Act.
“The police know very well they can’t use the parliamentary evidence in any way. But that doesn’t stop them from investigating the [evidence] to find other evidence of a leak.
“There’s been a good deal of political controversy about these sorts of investigations... questions in the Senate estimates process and so on.
“But the federal government does have a policy of having the federal police investigate every leak of information.”
Every leak? Surely not?
“Well, every unauthorised leak,” Mr Evans adds.
As for Mr van der Weegen, he’s left to wonder whether or not the AFP will ever knock on his door and face him; why he was being investigated in the first place; and whether the serious allegations he levelled against government officials and one minister will ever be followed up.
He doesn’t even want to contemplate how the new sedition laws might be used.
“You know, the only time I ever felt as if I was actually living in a democracy was when I was giving evidence in the Senate,” he said.
• Other stories in the NIT sedition feature are listed below, including the first part of this two part story (the top related link). You can also click on the other related links below to go straight to additional sedition feature stories.
• SEE ALSO: You have the right to remain silent
• SEE ALSO: The 'official' leak and the power of the press
• SEE ALSO: Wadeye rolled out welcome for 'Top Man'
• SEE ALSO: Time running out for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy?
Related Links
http://www.nit.com.au/story.aspx?id=6131
http://www.nit.com.au/news/story.aspx?id=6128
http://www.nit.com.au/news/story.aspx?id=6130
posted by professor rat at 1:42 AM
<< Home