Petition from members of the RACP demanding transparency

We, members of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP), seek answers to urgent questions relating to the financial management of our organisation. We demand confirmation that funds provided and owned by members have been managed with probity and in a manner consistent with legal obligations. Specifically, we request the conduct of an independent, public forensic audit to answer the following questions:

A. questions about payments to directors, staff members and others requiring explanation 

1.     Is it true that the RACP CEO is paid more than $640,000 per year and most of the senior executives more than $350,000 per annum? What is the basis for these apparently excessive amounts and why have these not been disclosed and justified to members?

2.     Is it true that former president Jennifer Martin over her period in office received payments of approximately $230,000, including any to her advisers and insurers? If so, what were these payments for? Why have they not been disclosed to members? Were these payments in breach of the RACP constitution’s prohibition of payments to directors? 

3.     Is it true that since May 2025, approximately more than $2 million has been paid from RACP funds to private legal firms, including Norton Rose Fulbright, Corrs and Freehills? If so, why has the College paid such fees and why were they paid to private legal firms? In addition, if these claims are correct, why have these payments not been reported and justified to members? Is the ACNC aware of such payments? If so, what action has the ACNC taken in respect of them? 

4.     Is it true that $90,000 was paid to a NZ fellow who is a close associate of the former president during her tenure? Is this the same fellow who has called numerous unsuccessful EGMs at great cost to members? If so, what was this payment for and why has it not been disclosed to members?

5.     Is it true that approximately $180,000 was given as a golden hand shake to a previous interim CEO who was in position for approximately one year and who had a personal relationship with the former president? Did this interim CEO have substantiated findings of poor conduct towards staff?

6.     Have any payments other than those mentioned above been made to directors since May 2024, including stipends, payments for personal expenses and payment of insurance premiums? Were these included in the financial reports presented to the AGM? If not, why not? 

7.     Are ACNC-appointed directors receiving any payments or fees? Is this compliant with the prohibition of payments to directors in the RACP constitution? 

8.     In addition to the salaries mentioned above, have any  CEOs, interim-CEOs or senior executives received bonus payments or other benefits? If so, on what basis were these bonuses calculated and why have they not been disclosed to members? 

9.     Have the present CEO and senior staff members received recent pay rises? If so, what was the process undertaken to justify such pay rises, given that the RACP has been operating in deficit for at least the last three years? What is the quantum of these rises? Why have they not been disclosed to members?

10.  Is it true that in March 2026, immediately prior to the EGM and the end of the term of former President Jennifer Martin, the notice period required for termination of senior RACP staff was increased from one (or in some cases three) months to six months? If so, why was this the case? Why was it not reported to the members? Why was it not a matter for discussion at the AGM? Is it true that the implications of this decision for the College, in the case that it seeks to dismiss key senior staff members, could exceed $1 million? 

11.  Has the board approved a deed of release and payment to the CEO? If so, who were the board members present at this meeting and who, if anyone, was excluded, and why? If such a deed has been approved or signed, why has it not been reported to members? What is the cost to members of this deed of release? 

12.  Is it true that the legal fees for the unsuccessful private Supreme Court action brought by certain individual board members to delay the AGM and annul the EGM that dismissed the former president were paid by the RACP out of members’ funds? If so, why was a personal court action against other directors paid for by the members? 

13.  Are members’ funds being used to investigate the EGM that removed the previous president, even though it was validated and the outcome confirmed in the Supreme Court action mentioned above? If so, why is this occurring and by whom? Has there been an independent assessment showing that this is a responsible expenditure of members’ funds? 

14.  Are members’ funds being used to prepare yet another legal process or action to dismiss the suspended president-elect as a member and/or director? Have members been consulted either on the action or the use of their funds for this purpose? 

15.  Is it true that more than $5 million has been spent on a new Melbourne office in the last two years? If so, why was this expenditure undertaken considering that the usage of the previous office, and now the present one, has been minimal.? What was the company that conducted these refurbishments? What process was undertaken to choose the contractors? Were any conflicts of interest disclosed or identified in the selection process? 

16.  In addition to the above, what additional undisclosed direct or indirect financial payouts, if any, have been made  to staff, directors, former directors or third parties over the last 2 years?
 

B. Questions relating to a proposed loan to upgrade website (“Trellis” project)

17.  Is it true that the College has taken a $30 million loan to upgrade the website and IT services (the so-called “Trellis” project”)? What activities have been included in the scope of the proposed work? How has the membership voice been included in determining its scope, sequence and subsequent investments? 

18.  What independent financial review was undertaken prior to such an unprecedented expenditure? Who was the treasurer at the time of board approval of this project and what financial training or qualifications does he or she possess? 

19.  If such a loan is indeed either contemplated or a reality, is it true that it represents a significant and unprecedented escalation of financial risk to the College? Has a transparent and detailed business case for this project been prepared and subjected to independent, professional review and scrutiny? 

20.  What exactly is intended to be achieved with the proposed project? Has there been an independent review to establish the need for the services that will potentially be provided? Have members been consulted on either the purported need or the proposed expenditure? 

21.  Why does a College with approximately 35,000 members require an IT expenditure significantly greater than that undertaken by universities within Australia which serve a much larger number of  users with more complex needs?

22.  What is the pay-off period for this loan? What is the interest rate at which the money is being borrowed? What will be the final total cost of the loan? 

23.  Has there been a rigorous risk-return analysis demonstrating why margin lending is an appropriate and responsible instrument for a not-for-profit professional college?

24.   Is there evidence that lower-risk alternatives, such as staged delivery, internal reprioritisation of capital or non-leveraged funding mechanisms were thoroughly evaluated and ruled out? Has a clear explanation of how leveraged debt aligns with the College’s long-term financial strategy, capital management framework and stated risk appetite been prepared, subjected to independent assessment and presented to members for consultation? 

25.  How will the debt facility affect future budgets, cash flow, and the College’s capacity to absorb financial shocks. 

26.  Has there been disclosure regarding: interest rate exposure and stress-testing under adverse market conditions; margin call thresholds; trigger events; contingency funding plans; the impact of debt servicing on operational expenditure, member services, and core educational functions; and specific governance, reporting, and oversight mechanisms linked to TRELLIS expenditure and financial performance?

27.  What is the total quantum of funds that have already been spend on IT activities in the last three years? What tangible member benefits have been generated as a result of this expenditure? To what extent have members been consulted about such IT projects? What steps have been taken to advise members about either the outcomes of past IT investments and any investments being considered for the future?

28.  Do any present or past directors, staff members or third parties stand to benefit from these transactions or have prior relationships with the providers? If so, in what way and why have such personal benefits not been disclosed to members? 
 

C. Questions relating to bullying and board processes

29.  Is it true that the suspension  of the president-elect by the ACNC has been justified on the basis that she sought information about payments that have been made to the CEO and senior staff members? If so, why had this information not already been made available to directors and members as a matter of course? If so, what is the justification for suspending a director for seeking information about undisclosed payments to staff and others? 

30.  Is it true that more than two dozen whistleblower reports, including multiple allegations of financial impropriety, bullying, victimisation of whistleblowers, lack of transparency and other matters have been submitted to the ACNC and the College? If so, is it true that no action has been taken on these reports, either by the College or the ACNC, in response to them?  

31.  If it is true that the ACNC declined to act on the multiple whistleblower reports alleging various kinds of misconduct on the  justification that it is the responsibility of a company to address internal disputes without regulatory interference? If this is the case, what was the justification for the ACNC’s intervention in suspending the president-elect? 

32.  Is it true that an independent investigation into the behaviour of the former president into bullying accusations found the majority of the accusations to have been substantiated? If this is the case, was any action taken in relation to these findings by the ACNC or the College itself? If not, why not? 

33.  Have the company minutes from various board meetings in 2025 and 2026 – including those about which concerns were raised by the Company Secretary -- been subjected to independent verification as true and correct? Is it true that allegations have been made that certain contents of the minutes, such as references to workplace health and safety issues and financial impropriety by board and staff members, were deleted? If so, are these allegations correct? Is evidence available to confirm that meeting minutes have not been modified to limit member knowledge of claims or allegations that may have reflected adversely on certain individuals? 

34.  Have all past and present board members, staff members, relevant ACNC officers and third parties provided full disclosures of interests in relation to the above matters that, where appropriate, have been assessed by independent, external auditors? 
 

Disclaimer

All questions asked in this petition are presented in good faith with the objective of verifying probity and maintaining the integrity of RACP processes. No allegations of improper conduct against any individual are intended or implied. The petitioners are prepared to accept clear and correct responses to the questions raised on the basis that they are offered openly and transparently and, where appropriate, supported by evidence.  

WHAT WE DEMAND IN THE PETITION

By signing this petition, members of the RACP and the public call for an immediate, independent, public, comprehensive forensic inquiry from May 2023 until the present that provides answers to the above questions, including those relating to payments to directors, senior staff members and others, the use of RACP funds to cover personal legal and other expenses of specific individuals, the exercise of appropriate and required financial responsibility and oversight, responses to complaints about bullying and whistle-blower reports, and other matters.