Complaint just ‘NAAJA CEO Priscilla Atkins slandering another executive’, court hears

NAAJA director Vernon Hill said Priscilla Atkins’ complaint about CFO Madhur Evans ‘seemed very spontaneous, so my view was it was unprofessional’.

North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency chief executive Priscilla Atkins is suing the agency in the Federal Court in a bid to block her dismissal. Picture: Pema Tamang Pakhrin

A complaint from Priscilla Atkins about another senior legal aid executive was “unprofessional” and “seem(ed) to be one person slandering another”, a court has heard.

The North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency chief executive is suing the government funded organisation in the Federal Court in a bid to stop it sacking her as CEO following a bitter falling out last year.

On the final day of evidence in Darwin on Wednesday, NAAJA board member Vernon Hill told the court Ms Atkins’ complaint about chief financial officer Madhur Evans “seem(ed) to be one person slandering another”.

“It seemed as though a lot of these dot points had accumulated over a period of time, so if they were dealt with separately or at the time that they were made, these complaints, they probably wouldn’t have accumulated to that point,” he said.

“It appeared to be that they had been bunched together and just given to our two Alice Springs directors and our chairperson for some reason.”

Mr Hill said if Ms Atkins “was overseeing things, maybe these things wouldn’t have accumulated”.

“I don’t know, but it was just the way it had been presented I felt that was just something that was just, not out of our control, but just something that I didn’t know, to be honest, what to make of it,” he said.

Ms Atkins’ lawyer, Renae Kumar, suggested the CEO was asking the directors “to step in and help her deal with these issues” but that it was Mr Hill’s view “that really it was for her to deal with these things”.

“Well they could have been brought up in the CEO’s report at the start of meetings” he replied.

“We always have a CEO’s report before our meetings and if there were some indiscretions that were of concern they could have been spoken about in the CEO’s report.

“The way it was put together, it just seemed very spontaneous, so my view was it was unprofessional.”

Earlier, former director Joel McLennan agreed with Ms Atkins’ lawyers that chairwoman Colleen Rosas had told the board her signature on Ms Atkins’ contract extension “must have been forged” but that “there was no forensic evidence” to support her assertion.

The trial will conclude with closing submissions in Adelaide on December 6.

‘No evidence’ NAAJA CEO forged chairwoman’s signature, court hears

A board member of the Territory’s Aboriginal legal aid agency has admitted in court it was “unfair” not to ask Priscilla Atkins to respond to allegations against her before voting to sack the chief executive.

Ms Atkins is suing the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency in the Federal Court in a bid to block her dismissal as CEO following a bitter falling out with the board last year.

On Tuesday, then deputy chairwoman Shirley Garlett told the court she was “gobsmacked” after an audit report revealed Ms Atkins had purchased a fleet of cars through a “novated lease scheme” using NAAJA funds.

“There was no transparency and that’s probably why it’s come to where it is today,” she said.

Ms Garlett said based on a conclusion by BDO Australia auditor Casmel Taziwa that he was unable to establish whether the arrangement had been approved by the board, she assumed it had not.

But under cross examination by Ms Atkins’ barrister Malcolm Harding SC, Ms Garlett agreed she had not turned her mind to whether or not there was proof that the CEO “had intentionally breached any NAAJA policy”.

Ms Garlett also agreed she had supported a resolution to terminate Ms Atkins’ employment even though she had not gone to her for a response.

But she denied that was because she “simply (wasn’t) interested” and had instead “assumed that had already happened”.

Fellow board member Johanna Assan also testified on Tuesday, telling the court she too was “shocked” by Mr Taziwa’s findings but her shock was “based entirely on an assumption” which “could have been cured” by asking Ms Atkins, which she didn’t do.

“Well would you accept that that’s unfair to Ms Atkins?” Mr Harding asked.

Ms Assan replied: “Yes.”

Another board member, May Rosas, agreed that an investigation by NAAJA’s IT department had found no evidence for an allegation Ms Atkins had forged the NAAJA chairwoman’s signature to give herself a pay rise.

Asked if she had “seen any evidence of forgery” when she voted to suspend Ms Atkins, Ms Rosas said “there was question marks around that”.

But she agreed that her only basis for voting for the suspension was chairwoman Colleen Rosas’ “word that she hadn’t signed the letter”.

“Can you recall whether she said it was for Ms Atkins to prove that Ms Colleen Rosas had signed that contract extension letter?” lawyer Renae Kumar asked.

“I believe so, I understand she said that was not her signature,” Ms Rosas replied.

The trial continues.

Originally published as Complaint just ‘NAAJA CEO Priscilla Atkins slandering another executive’, court hears