ATO HR uses false allegations of "sexual harassment" as a tool to try remove employees from the Org [Part 1]

Nardine started an investigation on a male ATO employee on the basis that sexual harassment had occurred. The male employee asked for the basis, the justification Nardine was relying on to start her preliminary investigation, and Nardine stated that it would be provided in the coming days.

Weeks went by and nothing was provided to the male employee. Nardine was unable to provide the male employee with any reason that she was investigating him for sexual harassment. Further to this, colleagues of the male employee had reached out to him, and they told him that they felt like Nardine was "pressuring them" into writing a witness statement that supported her narrative, instead of the facts that occurred. None of the male employee's colleagues relented to Nardine's pressure, thus Nardine was unable to get anything that even suggested that sexual harassment had occurred...

What happened next is completely wrong. Having seemingly been unable to pressure witnesses to write statements that suited her narrative, Nardine then conspired with the female employee complainant and allowed her to "refine" her complaint so that any mention of sexual harassment was removed, because they could not find any evidence to support it. That is totally disgusting! If there is no evidence of sexual harassment, then the female employee who has made the clearly vexatious allegation of sexual harassment should face penalty for her vexatious complaint, or at the very least an apology for whatever "mix up" led to her making an incorrect assessment... But this did not occur. The female employee received the full protection of Nardine McLoughlin because there was an agenda to remove the male employee from the ATO, and she was assisting Nardine with her agenda to get the male employee removed.

That's a whopper of a refinement... to go from sexual harassment to harassment, how does such a refinement occur? Well, Nardine and the ATO never cared to share. The initial complaint was and is still kept secret to this day, even if it exists at all. And why are employees allowed to say they were sexually harassed and then just refine their story so suddenly they were not and that is all ok?

The "harassment" was also overkill. What happened is that in a drunken rage at the pub one night, some things happened, a touchy topic was being discussed, and the male employee said "shut the fuck up you stupid idiot" to the female employee. That is the entire controversy that happened 19 July 2019.... It is not sexual harassment... it is not even harassment, it was a rude outburst of profanity that was of course inappropriate, but it should have been delt with for what it was, not pumped up into a false allegation.

Now as you can see, the behaviour is not sexual harassment, yet Nardine was pushing this false narrative. When asked how could it be sexual harassment? The male staff member was told "It's sexual harassment because you intimidated a member of the opposite sex". Comcare asked Nardine why she considered it to be sexual harassment.

As you can see, Nardine thinks that if a person harasses someone (in this case swears at them) and also happens to walk onto public transport around the same time as them, this is sexual harassment.... So look out blokes! If you walk onto a bus at the same time as swearing at a lady, Nardine will tell you that you possibly wanted to have sex with them.

The male employee did and does accept full responsibility for his actions, namely, the above words that were spoken. He apologised to the female employee at the earliest opportunity and would have faced the consequences for his actual actions, however instead of facing an investigation about what really happened, Nardine tried her very hardest to somehow twist this into sexual harassment... and then switched to harassment once it appears she was unable to get any witnesses to play her game.

The male employee spent weeks facing a false allegation of sexual harassment and he was unable to defend himself because Nardine had nothing to justify her preliminary view. It was all hopes and dreams on Nardine's behalf. To the male employee, Nardine seemed so desperate to nail him that she was trying to invent an alternate version of the truth!

What happened next was what I guess you call an "ultimatum".

The male employee was told that his position was going to be made redundant, and even if he tried to stay with the organisation, they were going to put him in a menial role where he would be really bored and fight with managers constantly and also the "harassment" investigation would be conducted against him and maybe he will be fired as an outcome of that...

Nardine went about collecting statements, and then she appears to have set about redacting parts of some statements that didn't align with her narrative. Here is a statement that was in part redacted by Nardine (black is Nardine's redactions, grey mine).

It seems Nardine didn't know how to redact documents properly. The male employee was able to trivially un-redact the redactions made by Nardine by simply highlighting the redaction and setting the font colour to yellow.

It appears that Nardine was trying to conceal the fact that this witness did not want to make an official complaint. What reason could Nardine have to redact that? Here is Nardine's reply to Comcare about it.

For a start, Nardine didn't even redact the witness's identity. See redacted witness statement above, the signature block is redacted in the colour grey by me to protect that person's identity. Nardine did not redact their name, position, the entire signature block was unredacted so this statement by Nardine seems, at least partially, to be false. There are redactions in other witness statements that I would agree go towards preserving anonymity of the witness, but this is not applicable to every statement that was redacted by Nardine.

But secondly and incredibly importantly, Nardine claims all witness statements were obtained before 25 July. There are 3 witness statements in total. Here is Nardine seeking one witness statement, note the date is 30 July, strangely allowed an entire month for the witness to supply their statement too.

Here is Nardine seeking the second witness statement, again this occurred 30 July and not 25 July as falsely claimed. This appears to be an extract from the instant messaging app staff use within the ATO.

If I recall correctly the third witness statement was sourced and obtained 29 July, this is the conversation I have relating to the third witness statement.

It is a provable statement of fact that Nardine did not source all witness statements before 25 July, and thus Nardine has made a false statement by trying to claim she sought all witness statements before 25 July.

The ATO tried very hard to avoid releasing this information under FOI. It took years and a soft intervention from OAIC to finally get this information.

Nothing of this is ok, but Nardine McLoughlin was the boots on the ground pushing this narrative, patching it all together, seemingly trying to pressure people into making false witness statements etc. Now you tell me people of Australia, is this the kind of person that you want in a SENIOR management position of your Australian Taxation Office? Maybe you have a different view to mine, and that is fine, but me personally I do not believe that staff members should be trying their hardest to turn small issues into fake sexual harassment allegations, and then try and force people into taking a redundancy. Do you honestly believe that it is proper behaviour?

Our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says that trust in Government has never been lower... well pardon me PM but surely you can see why? When you are allowing people to do this kind of stuff why would anyone have any trust in the Government? I don't, my trust is thoroughly vanished, and IMO if you hold any trust in the Australian Government you are wilfully ignorant, and I should know.

You may be asking yourself, how does someone who makes such bizarre interpretations of sexual harassment, does seemingly deceptive redactions on witness statements and makes provably false statements to Comcare when questioned, become an Assistant Commissioner at the APSC and the ATO? That's a very good question, allow me to share my observations regarding this.

The ATO appears to be a cesspool of low quality executives who look out for each other. When a complaint is made against one of these senior executives, what the ATO does is they hire an "independent investigator". This independent investigator is usually a lawyer, and it is my view that this lawyer is paid handsomely to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil and simply provide a report that says there is no problem here. That's my opinion based on what I have observed from the information sourced and before me.

I will also point out that the ATO has been very busy trying to keep this information hidden from you. As soon as I post it they either block me or delete my comments. I have commented on the Australian Taxation Office Commissioner Rob Heferen's LinkedIn and my comments were deleted now it seems I am blocked. I commented initially on Nardine McLoughlin's LinkedIn of course, she blocked me but that's unsurprising, the truth is scary to her I imagine. The Deputy Commissioner Alison Stott has blocked me. All of these people at the ATO believe that if they just block me and put their head into the sand, the problem goes away, but sadly that is not how it works, for the male employee the problem has not gone away.

All these people blocking me, of course they know this behaviour is occurring at the ATO, how can they not? This is why they block I think, they don't want to acknowledge the truth they would rather bury it. They are uninterested in what I have to I say I guess... Next time you are paying your tax, know that you are paying the wages of people who champion this disgusting behaviour.

I will also point out that Nardine McLoughlin was provided with an opportunity to repent back in 2019 and before this post was made, but for whatever reason she declined to repent for her actions on every occasion, be that as it may, here we are.

This is YOUR Australian Government, and the story I write about, IT COULD BE YOU NEXT! What would you do if it happened to you? Would you just remain silent about it, or would you speak up?

This should be educational for you as to why our ability to speak uncensored online is important. If they control the narrative, how would you ever know this is occurring?

In saying that, watch this get swept under the rug like nothing happened🙃, if their first reaction is to block this account instead of saying "Thank you for sharing this, I will make sure it gets sent to the appropriate area", then it is very obvious that it's "nobody's problem" and nothing will be done about it.

🦊

Addendum
I was made aware of this, and I would like to point out that I do not think that was an appropriate appointment for someone who engages in this type of behaviour. Me personally, I don't think that someone who demonstrates such a lack of morals, integrity or even empathy should be in a "taskforce" dealing with the APS Code of Conduct... someone who allows someone to make a sexual complaint and then "refine" the sexual component of their complaint out of existence is not someone who operates in accordance with the APS Code of Conduct in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree with me, but this is my view right or wrong.

Just the fact alone that Nardine allowed a seemingly vexatious complainant to "refine" her complaint, and then withheld the original complaint, that behaviour alone falls afoul of the APS Code of Conduct in my opinion, so questions have to be asked about how someone who engages in this behaviour ends up as an (acting) Assistant Commissioner of the agency responsible for overseeing the APS Code of Conduct? It is totally wrong and goes to show the massive failures occurring in Government. It seems to me that all these executive positions are won based on who knows who, they are not won based on performance or merit, because if they were, the performance of Nardine McLoughlin was and is well documented by the ATO, all this information I am telling you, the ATO knew in 2019, and yet they allow Nardine to be promoted into positions of power where she can do even more harm... make it make sense Australia... why do we allow this to happen?

The ATO has always been in a state of denial about what happened, it honestly believes that this is normal behaviour for an APS executive (Nardine was EL2 at the time she perpetrated this behaviour IIRC). But of course it is not normal, maybe this is normal for the ATO/APS? But this is not and should never be considered as normal behaviour, we do not normalise/champion vexatious complaints. The ATO did not want to listen in 2019 for whatever reason, well, avoid listening now I guess? Everything I present is the truth, so help me god if I am lying.

My complaint must be taken seriously, this is an official complaint. I am not restricted to certain mediums to make my complaint, this is a publicly available complaint which has been emailed to Rob Heferen, Alison Stott and the Working Well team at the ATO, they are well aware of it, and yet they remain silent. Just because my complaint names people and seems confronting is not an excuse to ignore it. I am at wits' end with you jokers, enough is enough, the people of this country deserve a better standard of human than you lording over us. What a hypocrite to enforce the APS Code of Conduct, yet seemingly knowingly breach it yourself when it is convenient for you to do so.

The original complaint should have been handed to the male employee as soon as you initiated your investigation Nardine. You should not have kept the complaint secret, tried to get witness statements that supported it, and then allow the complainant to "refine" her complaint once you realised the witness statements did not support her complaint... I am truly disgusted just tying it, it is so totally wrong what you did. Covering up the original complaint and protecting the complainant as she made her (seemingly) vexatious complaint is completely wrong, you know it, I know it, and this is why you are keen to hide from it Nardine.

Oh and the seemingly vexatious complainant... she now works for the AFP... See what happens when you don't take these complaints seriously? You end up with all these low integrity humans seeping into places and positions of power which require morals and ethics and they literally end up gutting our country from the inside out with their wrongdoing.

Again, the Prime Minister claims that trust in the institution has never been lower, well I present to you the leading cause. Why should any of us trust people who do this to other people?

When I look at the Government now days I see putrid people, people like Nardine McLoughlin, I do not see good people, and this is a problem for all of us.

Apparently there are 2 people in Canberra, ACT named Nardine McLoughlin. I'd hate for the wrong one to be named, so here is a picture of the offender so there can be no doubt.