The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Scrutiny & accountability

Scrutiny & accountability

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Well Judgement was handed down in a matter that my family put before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal with regard to obtaining documents from the Ombudsman in relation to his handling, and in our families case mishandling, of our families complaints against the Department of Education and Training. Sure enough the ADT didn't have the jurisdiction to do anything. It seems that nobody has the jursisdiction to ensure that complainants are afforded procedural fairness and are being treated fairly and that children are being protected.

I wasn't surprised with the outcome but it does concern me as if the Ombudsman can choose to use his discretion and not investigate matters, what is to stop him from assisting a Government Department to cover up allegations and complaints? Surely when it is a matter of child protection they should be obliged to properly investigate complaints so as to ensure that the children are protected. Otherwise what use are they?

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2008nswadt.nsf/f1a6baff573a075dca256862002912ec/7a311fa0db43128bca2574ad001673d7?OpenDocument

Education - Keeping them Honest
http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/education/
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 27 August 2008 6:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jolanda,
What did you honestly expect from another highly paid public servant pariscite in his own Tribunal ( pretend Court) protecting the other public servants and ignoring the rule of law, he can do this quite legaly and you gave him the authority to exercise his discression to make a decision along Govt Policy guidelines.

Did you provide him with any EVIDENCE or did you provide copies of documents that were not certified as true and correct ?

If he has no evidence how can he have jurisdiction ?

What form of EVIDENCE did you provide on oath or other-wise ?

Did you fill out any of their FORMS provided ?
Posted by Young Dan, Thursday, 28 August 2008 1:22:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not surprised you've got nowhere, Jolanda. Having been forced to deal with the incompetence and corruption that is part and parcel of the Child Support Agency and having had complaints upheld with no action taken to rectify the problem, I know how frustrating it can be to try to extract some accountability from the "faceless (wo)men" that preside over our lives. As long as the same people that create the problem are charged with fixing it, no reasonable outcome is possible and yet that is the standard way in which our modern bureaucracies operate.

Once, a Government bureaucrat took pride in acting "without fear or favour", now they can operate without fear of consequence, almost regardless of their culpability.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:22:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course I filled out the form. What evidence can you provide when you are seeking documents to shed light on their inaction? Since the DET are covering up my families complaints they just fed the Ombudsman lies and he took their side. Nobody will actually investigate or look at the evidence. Here are some of the issues/excuses that the DET have used....

It was agreed at a planning meeting that the matter would be settled by way of Submissions and I filed a Submission. I was told prior to that and at the Planning meeting that the ADT problably wouldn't have Jurisdiction but I still tried because I believed that when the Law was made for the Ombudsman to be exempt from the FOI Act it was on the condition that he would exercise his duties with integrity and with the best interest of the children of paromount concern. I didn't succeed, I am not surprised but hey at least I am trying to hold this corrupt Government to acccount. At least it shows that our Investigatory bodies are a farce and they can cover up with full protection. Scary when they are in charge of Child protection especially given how many children are abused and how many years it takes for the abuse to come to the surface - if ever .. Cover ups are all that our Government knows.
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:32:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Woops Young Dan sent the post before I finised....Sorry.

Here are some issues/excuses that were just ignored by the Ombudsman:

1. The DET gave the order to destroy original test papers despite the original documents being specifically requested to be put aside and produced under FOI so as to verify marks.
2. They accidentally sent me a copy of a result document, stuck by a paper clip to a letter, which showed the changing of test scores to a lower score. This lower score was used as the correct score to determine school placement. However the same document produced under FOI at a later date showed a higher score. They used the excuse that there was no room on the data file to keep all the information/scores and that information had to deleted to make room for more information. So they are essentially saying that there was no room for what they used as the lower right score but there was room for what they say is the wrong higher score?. No it doesn’t make sense!
3. We asked for certified true and accurate copies of our children’s test results. They sent an uncertified document of our children’s test results that showed inconstancies and errors.
4. They presented the matter in internal submissions as having been investigated and those about whom allegations had been made against had been cleared of any misconduct. This is despite the fact that no investigation has ever taken place as confirmed in internal documents wherein it states that we were promised an investigation and that the investigation has never happened.
5. They described me as having been deemed vexatious by the Minister, as being an angry aggressive mother who was a risk of harm to her children and whose complaints constituted a form of bullying. This is despite the fact that I have never formally been deemed vexatious and I followed Policy and Procedure in the lodgment of our complaints and they were all in writing and we were trying to protect our children from neglect, bullying, victimization, vilification and harm.
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:42:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Antiseptic I think you sum it all up when you say that they operate without fear of consequence. This is a situation that has to be changed - for our children's sake.

Public servants are supposed to exercise their duties with impartiality, integrity and without bias and discrimination....and definately without malice......however our experience is that they are generally either workplace bullies or by their indifference or inaction they support the bullies. Nobody seems to have to care about their victims. It just seems that victims/targets have no rights and no avenue for protection. Well I will continue to fight because our children deserve a better future than that of a corrupt Government as that usually grooms a corrupt society.
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 28 August 2008 7:50:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy