Ms
Sam Mostyn
President
Australian Council for
International Development
26th Feb. 2014
Dear Ms Mostyn
A
few hours after sending you my letter of 25th Feb, yesterday, I
received a letter from Chris Adams. In it he writes, on your behalf:
“I understand that the issues
raised in your previous correspondence are still being addressed through Global
Development Group’s complaints handling
process and that no complaint has been submitted to ACFID as yet.”
At
the time Chris’ wrote these words he was in possession of both Geoff
Armstrong’s letter to me of 25th Feb and my response to it. (I have
pasted Geoff’s letter to me and my response below) Chris knew that the Global
Development Group had ‘addressed’ Chanti and Chhork’s complaint and dismissed
it. Chris’ words here, in his letter to me of yesterday, are disingenuous.
The
prefacing of Chris’ comments above with the words ‘I understand’ are straight
out of Spin Doctoring 101. This is the Spin Doctor’s way of leaving him or
herself some wriggle room if it turns out that their ‘understanding’ turns out
to be wrong. “Oh, I am so sorry,” the Spin Doctor can say, having been caught
out, “I understood that such and such was the case and now you have presented
me with evidence that it was not.” Standard Spin Doctor operating procedure!
The
comment that Chris finishes his letter with is also straight out of Spin
Doctoring 101. The object is to obfuscate; to create the appearance of
answering a question (in this instance a reason not to answer a question) by
responding with:
“I am in not position to respond
to questions about how the committee will respond to a hypothetical complaint.”
The
question I asked in my letter yesterday was not in relation to a ‘hypothetical
complaint’. Here it is, again:
“Does the Australian Council
for International Development believe that parents whose children have been
removed by an NGO have a right to be given copies of any agreements of
contracts the NGO, funded by Australian tax-deductible dollars, has entered
into with a government department in the country in which such a removal has
occurred?”
This is not a question about a
hypothetical complaint. It is a question about ACFID policy’; about what ACFID
considers to be evidence and what it does not; about whether or not ACFID has
any interest at all in evidence – given E31 of your Complaints Handling
Process:
E.3.1
sets out the steps in the process. Note that these are not court processes and no party has the right to make
oral submissions, to a hearing or to legal representation nor do the rules of evidence apply.
What does ‘rules of evidence’ mean in this context?
Does it mean that ACFID may or may not ask the Global Development Group to
provide copies of the legal documents Geoff Armstrong has made quite clear his
NGO has in its possession?
Let’s come at the question of
‘evidence’ from a slightly different angle. Imagine, in Australia, that you
have made a complaint that is set down to be heard in a court, a tribunal or
some such entity the job of which is to determine where the truth lies about a
particular matter. The key piece of evidence, upon which rests the truth or
otherwise of the allegations you have made and which have led to a
hearing, is a document. A legal
document. A contract. A contract signed by the parties to a it. Strong
evidence. Alas, you arrive for the hearing to discover that the judge, the
conciliator, the adjudicator, has no intention of looking at this legal
document – not even to determine if it is, in fact, legal! How would you feel?
An absurd proposition? Of course
it is. And yet Chris is suggesting, by implication, that if Chanti and Chhork
make a complaint to ACFID there is no guarantee that ACFID will ask the Global
Development Group for copies of the only documents upon which a determination
relating to legality of Citipointe church’s actions can be made. Is this
ACFID’s position? Is it ACFID policy that it will not say in advance whether or
not the key pieces of evidence will be called upon or not?
Returning to my hypothetical in
which it is Sam Mostyn who must decide whether or not to lodge a formal
complaint, knowing as she does that there is no guarantee that the judge,
conciliator or adjudicator is going to view the key piece of evidence. Would
you proceed with your complaint?
Could you please provide me with
an actual answer to my question above and not leave it to Chris Adams to write
some spin non-answer that he hopes will suffice.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment