Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document


Previous Fragment    Next Fragment

Notice given 10 August 2001

3835  Senator Harris: To ask the Minister for Justice and Customs—

(1) Was Mr Francis Day nominated by any member of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for reprofiling.

(2) (a) Was Mr Day told he had a future in the AFP but not advised to the contrary of this until the non-renewal of his contract; and (b) what action is the Minister taking in relation to this.

(3) Why was Mr Day not advised by the new General Manager of Northern, F/A Overland, of a non-renewal of his contract.

(4) What action is the Minister taking in relation to the failure by F/A Overland not to nominate Mr Day for reprofiling.

(5) Why did F/A Overland fail to provide counselling or remedial training or to discipline Mr Day during his 4-year contract.

(6) Why did F/A McKnight, during his unauthorised supervision of Mr Day, not discipline Mr Day at the time of his observations at which time he should have provided counselling and remedial training.

(7) (a) Why did both F/A Overland and McKnight allow Mr Day’s alleged poor performance to continue unabated for 4 years; and (b) what action is the Minister taking in relation to this.

(8) Why did Mr Day’s Team Leader and Directors sign his PMPs for this period as meeting the required standard, given F/A Overland’s stated concerns in the same period.

(9) (a) Why was Mr Day never made aware of F/A Overland’s concern, and not given the opportunity to address any alleged shortcomings; and (b) what action will the Minister take in regard to this.

(10) (a) Will an investigation be conducted into F/A Overland’s stated allegations; and (b) why were Mr Day’s Team Leader and Directors (Gordon Williamson and Tony Negus, among others) promoted, if they failed to carry out their duty in relation to Mr Day to a satisfactory standard or to follow regulations.

(11) (a) As Mr Day was caught in the middle of this chaos of contradictions by senior officers, why did the AFP take action against him alone; and (b) what action is the Minister taking in relation to this injustice.

(12) Did the Review Panel, which supposedly reviewed Mr Day’s case, have the following conditions:

(a) Mr Day would not be allowed to speak except to answer questions;

(b) Mr Day’s accusers would not be attending the Review Panel and, therefore, would not have to answer questions from either Mr Day or the review panel; and

(c) Mr Day was denied legal representation.

(13) (a) Does the Review Panel adhere to government policy by treating all employees in Australia equally; if not, why; (b) was Mr Day treated differently; and (c) does the Government support the above procedure for all employees.

(14) (a) Why was Mr Day not notified of the review until 1400 hours on 19 November 1999; (b) why did F/A Overland repeatedly fail to answer Mr Day’s requests up until that date for an explanation of his non-notification on 17 November 1999, along with members of Northern Regions; and (c) what action will the Minister take in relation to this matter.

(15) Did the AFP deny Mr Day the opportunity to properly defend himself against the allegations in that Mr Day was denied the right to speak at the Review Panel hearing.

(16) What action is the Minister taking in relation to those members reprofiled as being unsuitable for continued employment with the AFP who were employed by the Criminal Justice Commission in Queensland.

(17) How was it possible for Mr Day to pass his evaluation assessments during the 18 months that F/A McKnight allegedly observed Mr Day, while in another department.

(18) (a) Did the AFP fail to provide Mr Day with the information he required to make a proper submission, taking into account that he was denied the right to speak at the review, which resulted in his refusal to take part in such a pretence of alleged justice; and (b) was some information not known by Mr Day until months after the review; if so, can the Minister confirm that the AFP advised the Minister or department that the Review Panel investigated all the above, and can detailed accounts of the investigations conducted by the Review Panel, such as the interviewing of relevant personal, reviewing of files, resources allocated, etc. be provided.