top of page

No one seemed concerned about Audit's confirmation

to the CMC that the veiled topic, in Ms Mason's letter dated 25 May 1998, was hidden from the ADCQ. 

It was incomprehensible that each of the so called "independent" investigative bodies of the ADCQ, the Ombudsman, the CMC and the PSC had completely discarded Ms Mason's false claim in that letter, given it was the very basis upon which the ADCQ Commissioner accepted I had been unlawfully discriminated against.

I hoped to find answers by making Freedom of Information (FOI) applications to the Ombudsman and Queensland Health.

The Ombudsman's FOI Co-ordinator responded: 

The documents received had not revealed the core of the Ombudsman's investigation so I made a further application:

The Ombudsman's FOI Co-ordinator responded:

Folio No 8, marked as the letter from the Queensland Ombudsman to the Queensland Health Director-General on 14 March 2001, was still excluded.

The additional documents still did not reveal any consideration by the Ombudsman to pertinent information contained in correspondence, retrieved from Ms Mason’s possession following the discrimination investigation, which had been excluded from the Queensland Health submissions to the ADCQ.

I made a further request to the Co-ordinator:

Whilst awaiting a response from the Ombudsman's FOI Co-ordinator, Queensland Health FOI released their copy of the Ombudsman's Folio No 8 which had been withheld.

Folio No 8: The letter of introduction dated 14 March 2001, from the Ombudsman to Queensland Health, attached a document titled: 'Extract of Complaint: Ms P Hollywood', revealing the considerations of the Ombudsman which, seemingly, the Ombudsman's FOI Co-ordinator was unwilling to release.

Once Queensland Health freely released the Ombudsman’s folio No 8 it appeared it was the Ombudsman, not Queensland Health, who was "substantially concerned" about its release; enough to prevent its release by invoking section 51 of the FOI Act.

Having waited six weeks for a response from the Ombudsman's FOI Co-ordinator, I asked why:

Without explaining why, the Ombudsman released further documents including Folio No 8; retitled Folio No 31:

Noticeably Folio No 11 excluded Ms Mason's stated inquiries with the Department of Workplace Health and Safety which, she later confirmed to the ADCQ, were false.

Folio No 8 and 31:

Items 13 to 26 of the 'Extract of Complaint' addressed Ms Mason's erroneous claim, in her letter dated 25 May 1998, and its dire impact; the basis upon which my discrimination claim had been made.

The Queensland Health response had not addressed any of the 26 listed items of concern:

To find how it was possible for Queensland Health to completely ignore the Ombudsman's list I made a further application to the Ombudsman's FOI Co-ordinator:

My request was not responded to.

The Crime and Misconduct Commission.

FOI confirmed the CMC revised my 10 page complaint; deleting 6 pages before referring it to Queensland Health.

In unison with the Ombudsman the CMC completely eliminated the FOI retrieval of missing documents from Ms Mason, following the conclusion of the discrimination investigation; thereby clearing Queensland Health of any responsibility for the content of those documents which had been excluded from the investigation.

The released CMC 'Note to File' demonstrated how, when accepting Queensland Health's admission that the claim in Ms Mason's letter dated 25 May 1998 was not included in her submission, to the ADCQ, the CMC was fully aware her claim was erroneous:

The documents released through Freedom of Information suggest the ADCQ, the Ombudsman and the CMC lack the powers to investigate independently of Queensland Health.

I requested a review of the decision, made in 2005 by the Public Service Commissioner, not to review the integrity of numerous investigations (conducted by Queensland Health, the ADCQ, the Ombudsman and the CMC) which guaranteed the veracity of Ms Mason’s claim to me, in her letter dated 25 May 1998, was never investigated:

The Public Service Commissioner declined:

I then asked the Public Service to conduct a wholly new investigation into the integrity of the recent Queensland Health investigation, conducted in 2006 by the Workplace Investigations Unit into the systemic cover-up of Ms Mason's letter dated 25 May 1998; which had also denied the irrefutable content of that letter.

One month later I followed up my request:

Two months had passed without a response when, on 9 August 2007, I wrote to the overseer of the Public Service Commission; the Queensland Premier, Mr Peter Beattie:

“… the propensity for QH to sustain the cover-up continues to thrive without any accountability…In March 2006, the Health Minister, the Hon S Robertson, did not heed my concerns that a probable conflict of interest prevented QH from addressing key information, when referring my allegation of a QH cover-up to the QH Workplace investigation Unit (WIU). He did not independently review the records when accepting the unverified review from the WIU, that the key information had previously been addressed by QH…in September, I received a letter from Mr Robertson which enclosed a letter to me from the WIU, with which he was satisfied. The letter, the first and only received from the WIU…demonstrated an affinity with previous QH investigations…failed to review the respondent’s letter which undeniably informed me that it was following her enquiries with the Department of Workplace Health and Safety (WPHS), regarding my footwear requirements due to my disability, that I was required to make alternative footwear arrangements in the workplace. The WIU letter distinctly, and inexplicably, found the respondent’s letter had not informed me she had made prior enquiries with the Department of WPHS, regarding my footwear requirements due to my disability, when notifying me that I was required to make alternative footwear arrangements in the workplace…The WIU...failed to detect that the respondent’s statement to the ADCQ claiming she had not made enquiries regarding my footwear requirements due to my disability with WPHS…directly conflicted with her notification to me that she had…they failed to detect the truth of my claim that it was the respondent’s false information, to me, which falsely led me to believe the Department of WPHS had authorized her to restrict the footwear I required for my disability…The files released through FOI…confirm the WIU prepared Minister’s signed letter to me, accepting the WIU report. On 12 June 2007 I forwarded my concerns regarding the integrity of the WIU investigation to the Public Service Commissioner…I would like to reiterate there are not any honest watchdogs…Please evaluate the paper trail…to break the systemic code of secrecy and bring about honesty.”

Without a response from the premier or the Public Service Commissioner I wrote to the Assistant to the Minister for Health:

The letter, referenced MI148505, was referred to the Workplace Investigations Unit to draft the response:

On 30 August 2007 I wrote again to Mr Beattie:

“Further to my letter to you dated 9 August 2007, which has not yet been responded to, I now ask you to intervene in the persistence of the Public Service Commission to delay providing a written response to my submission, made on 12 June 2007...According to my telephone conversations with Ms Janice Saleh, the Public Service Commission is still debating whether my submission is within their jurisdiction...

I believe you have the power to break down the barrier preventing the Public Service Commissioner from exposing the lie in Ms Mason’s letter dated 25 may 1998 and would ask that you use your power to initiate an investigation into the widespread individuals lacking in the impartiality they are entrusted with...”

Mr Beattie continued to ignore my letters.

I then requested assistance from an Opposition Member of Parliament, Mr T Nicholls:

Mr Nicholls immediately responded:

The Public Service Commissioner declined to clarify why the Workplace Investigations Unit found, in direct contrast to Ms Mason's letter dated 25 May 1998, that she had not informed me of her inquiries with WPHS regarding my specific footwear requirements.

Once the Premier, Mr P Beattie, announced his pending resignation, I followed up my unanswered letters:

Please be kind enough to take the time, before you leave office on Thursday, to acknowledge this letter and my previous two letters, dated 9 August 2007 and 30 August 2007…

You promised Queenslanders that if they wanted to ‘blow the whistle’ they could approach any Member of Parliament. I have approached many of your team, including yourself, who have proved to be unwilling to expose the fact that, contrary to her statement to the ADCQ, Ms Mason was aware of the extent of my disability and, contrary to her statement to me, she was not authorized by the Department of Workplace Health and Safety to place a restriction on the footwear I specifically required for my disability.

No one was willing to expose the irrefutable fact that it was Ms Mason’s unauthorized restriction, placed on the footwear I required for my disability, which rendered me incapacitated and ultimately forced me to resign my nursing position of 13 years.

My concerns are for the continuing lack of transparency within QH…I will ask again that as you are fully aware of those facts which conflict with the investigation purportedly conducted by the Workplace Investigations Unit, you use your power to ensure the integrity of the Public Service Commissioner’s given reason for his decision not to investigate.

I believe it is within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commissioner to address those facts; to either refute or expose them before he closes the file to conceal the cover-up.

Please take the time to resolve the Workplace Investigations Unit’s cover-up of those facts before you leave office."

I also requested a formal review of the Public Service Commissioner's decision, not to investigate the accuracy of the findings of the Workplace Investigations Unit:

I received a letter regarding the Public Service Commissioner from Mr Nicholls:

Mr Nicholl's attached two letters:

I then received the response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, ref:MI148505, which had been drafted by the Workplace Investigations Unit:

When drafting the letter the Workplace Investigations Unit made certain the Manager, Mr M Brady, did not account for his finding that Ms Mason had not, as claimed in her letter dated 25 May 1998, told me she had made specific inquiries with the Department of WPHS, regarding my footwear requirements due to my disabilities.

In unison with the Minister for Health, Ms K Struthers had unconditionally accepted the conflicted advice received from the Workplace Investigations Unit.

On 3 October I responded to Ms Struthers:

“I appreciate you have been advised by officers from Queensland Health…I insist existing evidence has been deliberately ignored…I would appreciate it please if you would review your decision not to take further action, on the basis of the following…Clearly, both the QH General Manager and QH Audit and Operational Review Unit agreed my complaint of discrimination was not investigated, as was claimed to have been to the ADCQ by Dr Menzies, and both agreed that Dr Menzies’s corroboration of Ms Mason’s information, to the ADCQ was based purely on advice he unconditionally accepted from Ms Mason…Mr Brady expressed his denial of the indisputable fact that Ms Mason did state to me she had communicated with the Department of Workplace Health and Safety specifically about my issues, in her letter dated 25 May 1998...I have demonstrated the existence of evidence confirming a QH cover-up. The evidence indisputably confirms the content of Ms Mason’s letter to me, dated 25 May 1998, was concealed by both Ms Mason and Dr Menzies during the initial discrimination investigation, and confirms that it was not investigated by the QH units...I hope I have provided enough evidence to prove to you that, contrary to Dr Menzies claim to the ADCQ, QH did not conduct an investigation into my complaint of discrimination and, contrary to the advice you received from the QH units who claimed to have objectively, and thoroughly, investigated the integrity of the information provided by Ms Mason and Dr Menzies to the ADCQ, the units did not actually conduct their own investigation into the discrimination, to determine the truth”

That same day the Public Service Commissioner notified me of his refusal to allow his decision (not to review the integrity of the Workplace Investigations Unit) to be independently appraised by one of his peers.

I was unaware the Workplace Investigations Unit had prepared Ms Struther's response when requesting further assistance from Mr Nicholls.

Mr Nicholls responded:

I tried to convince Mr Nicholls that evidence confirming the discrimination had been suppressed:

I received a response from Ms Struthers:

I followed up my letter to Ms Bligh, who was now the new Queensland Premier:

The Premier responded:

On 24 November 2007 the Director-General gives her notice to resign:

I wrote again to Ms Schreiber:

In keeping with the response received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, on 27 September 2007, the response from the new Queensland Health Director-General was prepared by the Workplace Investigation Unit, of which I had raised concerns about a cover-up by the Manager, Mr Mark Brady, of pertinent information contained in Ms Mason's letter dated 25 May 1998.

The letter was actually prepared by Mr Brady, whose integrity had been brought into question:

bottom of page