logo
Senior home affairs official abused public office to get her future brother-in-law a job, Nacc finds

Senior home affairs official abused public office to get her future brother-in-law a job, Nacc finds

The Guardian5 hours ago

A senior home affairs department official has been found to have abused public office and misused internal information to get her future brother-in-law a job, including hiding their relationship and sharing job interview questions with her sister.
A damning National Anti-Corruption Commission report released on Monday found the woman, who was given the pseudonym Joanne Simeson, forged a signature and coached her sister on how to hide the family relationship, eliciting suspicions from colleagues involved in the recruitment process.
The report into the Nacc's Operation Kingscliff said Simeson, who at the time was the acting assistant secretary overseeing the department's global initiatives branch, had resigned from the public service before she could be terminated.
While at home affairs, she praised her sister's partner to colleagues, created a job requisition, approved it herself and forged a witness signature on paperwork to fast-track the process.
The woman's sister, known as Melissa in the report, was employed overseas. Her husband, known as Mark, studied while living overseas.
Joanne sought Mark's resume for the job application in late 2022 and told her sister an assistant secretary was eager to conduct a job interview.
'We'll talk [Mark] through the lie,' she wrote in a text message. Her sister responded: '… he's so bad at lying he's too honest.'
'Well he's gonna have to do better or I'll get in trouble,' Joanne said. Melissa replied: 'Yes good say that and scare him haha.'
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
In March 2023, when Joanne put her Mark forward for another role in the department, a staff member asked if he would be suitable for the role, saying 'just want to check as his CV alone does not make him an obvious choice'.
She called him a 'friend of a friend' and said he should 'play along' with the lie. 'Also I'm the boss so they will do whatever I say,' she told her sister.
A colleague involved in the recruitment process said Joanne's interest in the role was unusual, describing Mark as 'this dude in Italy'. They asked another staff member if there was a connection or if Joanne thought they were underperforming.
After he was employed, Joanne told her sister she met Mark at the office.
'HAHAHAHAHA I JUST WENT TO HUG HIM THANK GOD HE STUCK HIS HAND OUT,' she wrote. Melissa replied: 'GAHAHAHAH … What a good boy he's such a good boy.'
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
Nacc said her conduct was serious because of her seniority and 'because nepotism, cronyism and undeclared conflicts of interest in APS recruitment are an area of widespread concern'.
Submissions made on the woman's behalf said she had not received any workplace training on recruitment, had not had ongoing conflict of interest training and did not give proper and due consideration to her decision not to disclose the familial relationship.
She was described as being very remorseful.
The Nacc commissioner, Paul Brereton, said nepotism and cronyism were among the most frequently observed corrupt behaviours reported to the commission.
The corruption finding is the first publicly completed investigation by Nacc, which was established in June 2023.
Separately on Monday, a former home affairs immigration officer was sentenced for abuse of public office, after approving a visa application for her brother-in-law, and for causing unauthorised access to restricted data related to 17 people.
The man had his application for a visitor visa refused in November 2019. About 16 minutes after he reapplied, the employee self-allocated the case to herself as the visa decision-maker.
She was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, but will be released immediately to serve a 12-month good behaviour bond and pay a $10,000 fine.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law
Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law

Glasgow Times

time11 minutes ago

  • Glasgow Times

Palestine Action to legally challenge proscription under anti-terror law

An urgent hearing was held in the High Court on Monday related to an application for judicial review on behalf of one of the founders of the direct action group, Huda Ammori. A further hearing will be held on Friday to decide whether the Government can temporarily be blocked from banning the group, pending a hearing to decide whether Palestine Action can bring the legal challenge. A decision on whether the group will be given the green light to bring the legal challenge will be given at a further hearing expected to be held in the week of July 21. Supporting statements have also been submitted by Amnesty International, Liberty and European Legal Support Centre over concerns of unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent, a spokesperson said. It comes as a draft order was laid before Parliament on Monday to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to include Palestine Action as a proscribed organisation, making membership and support for the direct action group illegal. If approved, it would become a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper unveiled the intention to ban the group on June 23 (James Manning/PA) Commenting on the hearing, Ms Ammori said: 'I have been left with no choice but to request this urgent hearing and to seek either an injunction or other form of interim relief because of the Home Secretary's decision to try to steamroll this through Parliament immediately, without proper opportunity for MPs and Peers to debate and scrutinise the proposal, or for legal and human rights experts and civil society organisations to make representations, or for those of us who would be denied fundamental rights as a result and criminalised as 'terrorists' overnight, including the many thousands of people who support Palestine Action.' The Government's move comes after two planes were vandalised at RAF Brize Norton on June 20 in an action claimed by Palestine Action. Five people have since been arrested on suspicion of a terror offence in relation to the incident. Unveiling the intention to ban the group following the incident on June 23, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it was the latest in a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action'. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising US President Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. Its website states the group uses disruptive tactics to target 'corporate enablers of the Israeli military-industrial complex' and seeks to make it 'impossible for these companies to profit from the oppression of Palestinians'. Ms Ammori added that causing disruption 'is not terrorism', while Ms Cooper has said proscribing the group is a 'legitimate response to the threat posed' by Palestine Action. The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al-Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company the Wagner Group.

DWP benefit cuts to push 150,000 people into poverty despite partial U-turn
DWP benefit cuts to push 150,000 people into poverty despite partial U-turn

Daily Record

time14 minutes ago

  • Daily Record

DWP benefit cuts to push 150,000 people into poverty despite partial U-turn

The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been left in relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals. Around 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty by 2030 as a result of the Government's welfare cuts despite Keir Starmer being forced into a partial U-turn. The figure is down from the 250,000 extra people estimated to have been left in relative poverty after housing costs under the original proposals. ‌ Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment (Pip) will only apply to new claimants from November 2026. ‌ Ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit. It comes after after 126 Labour MPs - 12 of them Scottish - signed an amendment that would have blocked the Government's Bill. Kendall will update MPs on the changes later on Monday, with the Labour leadership still braced for a substantial revolt. A No 10 spokesman said: 'The broken welfare system we inherited is failing people every single day. 'It traps millions, it tells them the only way to get help is to declare they'll never work again and then abandons them. 'No help, no opportunity, no dignity and we can't accept that. ‌ 'For too long, meaningful reform to a failing system has been ducked.' Government whips are expected to continue talking to would-be rebels in the lead-up to Tuesday's vote. This is when the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill faces its first Commons test. ‌ The No 10 spokesman said the poverty modelling was 'subject to uncertainty' and showed 'the effect of these measures on poverty in isolation in 2029-30, it doesn't reflect the full picture'. He added: 'You have to look at the record levels of investment in the health and care system, £29 billion more day-to-day funding in real terms, than in 2023-24, to help people get the treatment they need on time to return to work.' Several Scottish Labour MPs have told the Record today that they are undecided on whether they will back the bill.

Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel
Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel

Leader Live

time15 minutes ago

  • Leader Live

Human rights group loses legal challenge over exports of jet parts to Israel

Al-Haq took legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, telling a hearing in May that it was unlawful and 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'. In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict. But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, which are part of an international defence programme. The DBT defended the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is 'consistent with the rules of international law'. In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the legal challenge. The senior judges said that 'the conduct of international relations' is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a 'significant risk' that the carve-out could facilitate crimes. They added: 'The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.' The High Court was previously told that the decision to 'carve out' licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'. The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool. Israel is not one of the 'partner nations' of the programme, the court heard, but is a customer and can order new F-35 aircraft and draw on a pool for spare parts. The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to 'unilaterally' ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel. Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said: 'In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.' 'Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,' they added. The two judges also said the case was about a 'much more focused issue' than the carve-out itself. They continued: 'That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza. 'Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' Following the ruling, Al-Haq director general Shawan Jabarin said the long-running case had caused a 'significant impact'. He continued: 'Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start. 'This is what matters, that we continue on all fronts in our work to defend our collective human values and work towards achieving justice for the Palestinians.' A Government spokesperson said: 'The court has upheld this Government's thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter. 'This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store