Peter Boshier was chief ombudsman during 2020.
On 18 February 2020, I filed a complaint against MSD. His Office, as per usual, asked MSD for comment. MSD sent its 2017 BRC Report. This was prepared by BRC chair Ringa Williams and issued on 25 August.
Chair Williams prepared the BRC Report by making a verbatim copy of another MSD report, the ROD Report. A ROD Report was prepared by the ROD (Review of Decision) Team and was intended to attached copies of all documents relevant to the review, and included a summary of each document.
Chair Williams made the verbatim copy the deleted all the ROD Report's attached documents leaving only the document summaries in the BRC Report. The BRC had the ROD Report so did have all the attached documents.
The ROD Report was prepared by Kenneth Bulmer and issued on 8 August 2017 to the Benefits Review Committee. His report contained many deceptions and defamation. Most of the deceptions were in his document summaries, called the "Summary of Facts".
These deceptions could be identified by carefully comparing the attached documents to the summaries. The BRC had all the documents so could identify the deceptions, but by removing them from the BRD Report, chair Williams prevented a reader doing likewise. A reader would naturally assume MSD was not a morally-corrupt organ of state, and would simply accept what MSD had said.
So MSD sent its BRC Report to the Ombudsman with no disclaimer and in doing so intentionally deceived the Ombudsman. Peter Boshier (now Sir) then dismissed my complaint ex parte, that is, without giving the complainant an opportunity to defend their character against what MSD had said.
This breached the UN Charter on Human rightd. One human right is natural justice, the right to put ones case, the right to be heard, esecially in defending oneself against false allegations. Peter Boshier had contempt to the UN Charter on Human Rights. At leaast so it seemed.
I asked Peter Boshier to allow me to comment on what MSD had sent, on the ground of natural justice. He refused. An assistant ombudsman replied to my request saying that dismissing the complaint ex parte was proper.
I asked the Office to send what MSD had sent the Office. Peter Boshier refused, citing privacy. But in doibg that, he faqiled to advise that I could get MSD to provide the documetns by asking MSD under the Privacy Act.He must have known that that was an option, just as he must have known that dismissing a complaint ex parte was contemptuous of the human right of natural justice.
But I thought he might not have been paying much or any attentiopn to smaller cases. Being a bit of a showboat, I thgought he might been focusing on the big cases that guaranteed media attention. But it still would have been his decision to dismiss my complaint ex parte.
Another explanation is that he knew the MSD complaint was one he was required to dismiss. People, a cynic might suggest, aren't given knighthoods for nothing.
But as far as I could see, either he was ignoring smaller cases due to the allure of the media cameras, or he knew he must not proceed with a case that would entail considering torture by the government of Australia.
It had happened before. Chief Ombudsman Lester Castle in his draft report found in my favour. An officer of the Office, it might have been Dr Graham Taylor, advised I seek legal advice on the question of settlement. Three weeks before he intended issuing his final report, Lester Castle suddenly died to be replaced by former Secretary of Defense, John Robertson, who dismissed my complaint ex parte.
But what did Peter Boshier choose to avoid considering? My complaint was very simple.