More lawbreaking by Comcare (and a WHS fail)

Catherine Chan is the Assistant Director of the Statutory Oversight team within Comcare. Her partner in crime is Elizabeth Caitlin (Liz) Bell, Director, Statutory Oversight. Back in July '23, they delivered a service restriction on me that stated not only would the entire department of Comcare not respond to my emails because I upset Catherine Chan's feelings telling her to learn English, but they would file them without reading (I have now had multiple service restrictions like this and am currently under one such restriction).

This is two things:

1) It is ignorant from a WHS perspective.

2) It is actually putting Comcare in a position of neglecting its Statutory Obligations, and therefore seeing Comcare breaking the law.

1 - Ignorant from a WHS perspective

If Comcare truly believes that I am a WHS risk to its employees, how can it be sensible to file any email I send without reading it first?

If I send a bomb threat to Comcare, how will Comcare know I have sent a bomb threat if it does not read my email?

Let me give you a fictitious scenario here. Let's say Comcare makes an error (which is more usual than not, unfortunately), and I become aggrieved about it. Now let's also assume I am a violent person, and I send off an email to a Comcare staff member saying that I am going to go over to Comcare and shoot them dead. Perhaps I want them to stop me from doing it and I don't actually want to go through with the kill... but they will not, nobody will intervene because my emails are purposely not being read.

If Comcare reads my email, it can take precautions for the safety of that employee and stop them getting shot. If Comcare deliberately does not read my email, how will they know my plan to shoot their employee and how can they take measures to keep their employee safe? This is 100% a WHS safety failure, perpetrated by the Statutory Oversight team within Comcare.

If I shoot a Comcare staff member dead, and the police digital forensics team inspect my phone and see that I emailed Comcare days prior, and Comcare deliberately did not read my email and therefore took no actions to prevent the death of their employee, you can see the massive liability that this puts on Comcare right? Who in their right mind could think that this is a sensible plan? Nobody could think that as a response to someone you declare to be a "health and safety threat" you would therefore deliberately ignore their emails... can you see how this is entirely illogical from a WHS prespective? I would suggest that Catherine Chan and Liz Bell know full well that I am not a threat, and therefore are causing my emails to be ignored due to their own personal vendetta against me, rather than any actual WHS risk.

Based on this information, Catherine Chan and Liz Bell appear so desperate to attack me, that they are throwing logic and reason out the window and clearly putting the health and safety of other Comcare employees at risk, by deliberately having all my emails diverted to them, and then deliberately not reading them... What are these ladies hoping to achieve by deliberately ignoring my emails? Truly, what are they wanting to occur? To me it seems purely petty/retaliatory and seems like they are abusing their authority to attack me. Honestly, I believe they are doing it on purpose to try and make me threaten them so they can continue to justify what they are doing, but I do not stoop down to their level, I make no threats, I just inform the public of their bad behaviour instead.

This failure of even basic common-sense is made more embarrassing when you consider that Comcare is the Work Health and Safety Regulator for the Federal Government, and this failure is made by the Statutory Oversight team, the team that is supposed to make sure Comcare is following the law.

2 - Neglecting its Statutory Obligations

Comcare has certain legal obligations that it has to fulfil. One of these obligations is to provide documents that are requested under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. This is known as an 'FOI request' or disclosure of documents 'under FOI'.

According to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), Comcare has a 30-day time frame to provide documents requested under FOI, unless a valid extension is requested/granted.

If Comcare is not reading my emails for 30 days+, how will it read, accept and process my lawful FOI requests that I sent to [email protected] as per Comcare's instructions?

Can you see the problem here? When Catherine Chan/Liz Bell ensure that all my emails are diverted to them, so that they can deliberately ignore them, they are causing Comcare to break the law by failing to adhere to its Statutory Obligations under FOI (there are other statutory obligations they are failing to meet as well). Again, I will point out that the Statutory Oversight team, the team with which Catherine Chan is the Assistant Director, and Liz Bell is the Director, exists to ensure that Comcare is following the law and performing its Statutory Obligations. Both these ladies appear to be conspiring together, and deliberately abusing their power to put restrictions on me and ensuring that Comcare will not meet it's Statutory Obligations, by ensuring that my FOI requests will not be read and actioned. As the executive staff of the Statutory Oversight team they should know better, and I should not be needing to educate these people that they are breaking the law... but apparently it is my job to educate these people, and I must do so publicly as they are unwilling to listen to me otherwise, especially given they will not read my complaints, my emails are currently filed without reading.

Do you think that this behaviour by these Commonwealth employees is appropriate? I do not feel that it is. This situation appears to be inappropriate. As a result, I believe that the Statutory Oversight team at Comcare is completely broken, it is not fulfilling its purpose, and it needs to be purged of people who appear to be abusing their positions and performing actions that very obviously see Comcare breaking the law.

Even if Catherine Chan/Liz Bell want to say "oh but we were actually reading his emails" well then what, they are lying to me? It is acceptable for these Commonwealth employees to lie to me and tell me they won't read my emails, but then actually read them and that makes everything ok then?... That is not appropriate, that is against the APS Values/APS Code of Conduct.

This is not harassment I am doing, this is true information that I am sharing. I am not targeting people, these people are targeting me. My preference would be to have absolutely nothing to do with these 2 ladies, but they force all my emails to go through them and then they cause nothing but problems for me with their perpetual incompetence. I am simply reporting to you about what they are doing, and the laws that they are breaking in doing so. I have told Comcare that these ladies are targeting me, and that I do not wish for my emails to be diverted to them, and they do nothing about it, so I am forced to go public about the issues I am facing by these two ladies who very obviously have an agenda against me. If Comcare makes sure that this pair (and the team they supposedly run) have nothing to do with my claim ever, then I will have nothing more to say about them. This pair for sure work for the Australien Government... they don't work for the public, tell you that for free 👽.

I'm pretty sure this video below is a fair representation of the typical work day within the Statutory Oversight team at Comcare. I mean they are clearly not making sure that Comcare is following the law, and they are throwing Comcare employee health and safety out the window, so WTF are they actually doing? Not much I'd suggest, aside from making themselves the biggest agitant one could have on their claim, not much else at all.