7th March 2014
From Chris Adams, “Growth
and Effectiveness Manager” for the Australian Council for International
Development.
Dear Mr.
Ricketson,
Please find
attached a response to your letter addressed to Sam Mostyn dated 7 March from
Marc Purcell, the ACFID Executive Director.
Yours
sincerely
Chris Adams
Chris Adams has forgotten to delete the note written by Marc
Purcell, Executive Director of ACFID:
Thanks Chris.
Nicely abbreviated and to the point and does put onus on him. Have shared
with dfat. Rang Geoff but couldn't speak.
Thanks again
Marc
Chris Adams letter, signed by Marc Purcell
Dear Mr Ricketson
I am writing to you in
response to your letter to ACFID’s President Ms. Sam Mostyn dated 7 March. In
doing so I am taking into account your previous correspondence with ACFID dated
from 11 February to 3 March and ACFID’s responses dated 17, 19 and 25 February.
I understand that you are
seeking the overall outcome of reunifying children with their parents and that
this is the purpose that is driving your advocacy. I also understand that you
have raised this issue both with the Global Development Group – an ACFID member
- and with ACFID because you are not satisfied with the responses you have
received to date from Citipointe Church.
On receipt of your letter of
11 February, ACFID initiated its complaints handling process which is managed
by the ACFID Code of Conduct Committee and operates separately and entirely
confidentially from ACFID’s governance and executive management.
I note that on 17 February you
advised ACFID that you were not, as yet, lodging a complaint with ACFID pending
investigation of your complaint by GDG. I understand from your letter to ACFID
of 26 February that you are not satisfied with GDG’s response to the complaint
and that you have since raised similar concerns about other - as yet unnamed -
organisations in Cambodia. Finally I note from your letter of 7 March that you
advised the parents of the children referred to above not to make a formal
complaint to ACFID.
I reiterate ACFID’s
willingness to address a complaint against any Code signatory organisation if
and when a complaint is lodged with ACFID. Any complaint will be addressed in
accordance with the principles and in line with the process as set out in the
Code of Conduct Implementation Guidance. In doing so, ACFID will – as outlined
in the Guidance - make every reasonable effort to ensure that translation
services are available for people of non-English speaking background, ensure
that the process is conducted with a minimum of formality and technicality,
permit all parties reasonable opportunity to provide any information they
believe will assist the investigation and enable an investigating officer to,
at their discretion, seek additional information as required from the Code
signatory organisation. As noted previously, the complaints process will
respect the privacy and confidentially to which the parties are entitled under
the Privacy Act.
Finally, I would like to
address the systemic issues that you have raised in your correspondence.
I believe that changes to the
regulatory regime for child protection services in Cambodia are best addressed
by agencies based in Cambodia with the support of international actors as
appropriate. ACFID’s membership includes organisations that are involved both
in the delivery of child protection services and in improving the policy and
regulatory environment for those services both in Cambodia and other countries.
Given this, I believe that as
a peak body ACFID’s primary contribution to improving child protection in
developing countries is through setting standards in this area which apply to
all Code signatory organisations regardless of where they work, monitoring
compliance with those standards, addressing complaints in relation to compliance
with those standards and building the capacity of Code signatory organisations
to meet those standards in context specific ways. These standards are reviewed
and where necessary revised on a regular basis, in part informed by issues that
emerge through ACFID’s complaints handling process.
Finally, let me note that we
have and will continue to work with DFAT to improve child protection in the
delivery of Australia’s aid program, including through contributing to the
development and socialisation of DFAT’s child protection guidelines and
facilitating DFAT-led training with our member agencies.
Yours sincerely,
Marc Purcell Executive
Director
I was too busy to actually deal with the contents
of Marc’s letter that day (having been roughed up by police in the morning and
been talking with Judge Phou Pov Sun in the afternoon) but not so busy that I
could resist the temptation to point out to him the dangers inherent in not
deleting the note to Chris Adams – the ACFID Spin Doctor who had written the
letter on Marc’s behalf.
It could, of course, be quite a different ‘Geoff’
that Marc is referring to, not Geoff Armstrong at all, but common sense
suggests otherwise.
8th March 2014 email to Marc Purcell:
Dear Mark
Not only does Ms
Mostyn not respond to letters written to her, nor do you, the Executive
Director of ACFID, write letters on her behalf!
The letter
bearing your signiature, purporting to be from you, was written by Chris
Adams - a man who has revealed himself more than once now to be a
Spin Doctor from Central Casting.
Really, Marc,
when you write such notes to your resident Spin Doctor
( "Thanks Chris. Nicely abbreviated..." ) you should
be a little more careful not to send them to the person whose questions you are
trying to find a clever way of not answering!.
Careless!
As for the onus
being back on me (Nice one, Chris!), indeed it is.
One of the NGOs
funded by the Global Development Group guilty, in a major way, of breaching the
ACFID Code of Conduct is HAGAR - the NGO whose Khmer staff member induced a
young Cambodian to place his thumb print on a document alleging that he had had
sex with a foreigner. This foreigner is now in jail. If this allegation is true
it is not just a breach of the ACFID Code of Conduct but a felony.
Do be careful,
Marc, if you seek advice from HAGAR on how best to deal with these
allegations, and then get back to me with another letter written by Chris
Adams, that you delete evidence that you have spoken with HAGAR and that it was
not you who wrote the letter!
I am sure Geoff
is very appreciative of your call, but it is probably best, from a PR point of
view, not to let me know that you, the Executive Director of ACFID, a
supposedly independent monitoring body, 'rang Geoff' - the Executive
Director of the NGO about whom I have asked a quite legitimate question.
Really, Marc, as
my mother used to say, "I did not come down in the last shower." If
your intention, before any 'investigation' begins, is to chat with Geoff
on the phone about it, cover your tracks a little better than you have
here.
If you are going
to employ a Spin Doctor to write your letters for you, Marc, find someone
smart! I imagine there must be plenty of money in the ACFID budget and no doubt
plenty of young blades (male or female) who want to prove their Spin Doctoring
credentials and move one or more steps up the greasy Spin Doctor pole.
My legitimate
question:
"Was Geoff
Armstrong a parishioner or member of Citipointe church when, on 24th Feb, he
conducted his "thorough investigation" of the allegation that
Citipointe church illegally removed two Cambodian children from their family in
2008?"
I will not waste
my time and energy responding to your letter (written by Chris Adams) but will,
when time avails, write again to Ms Mostyn - whom, as President, as Captain of
the ship, Admiral of the fleet, must bear ultimate responsibility for ACFID's
failure to deal appropriately with the allegations that have been made
regarding three Global Development funded NGOs - one of which I have now identified
as HAGAR.
Your attempts to
shield Ms Mostyn,with or without her permission, will fail, Marc. Believe me.
Do yourself a favour (and this is some constructive advice to you) and be very
careful not to find yourself, through your unthinking reliance of a second-rate
Spin Doctor and chats with Geoff, making s complete (and very public) fool of
yourself.
Please accept
this as my first formal complaint.
(1) It is a
Khmer member of HAGAR'S staff that 'Seny' and 'Srey Pal' allege is involved in
a scam, along with the Cambodian police, to blackmail foreigners and, in the
process, acquire new child recruits for HAGAR.
Contrary to my
intentions earlier in the week, I did attend an interview yesterday, though not
with the police. I arrived at the court at the appointed time, bypassed the
police and asked to speak directly with Judge Phou Pov Sun. He agreed to meet
with me. I spent a couple of very illuminating hours with him.
Not aware, it
seems, of the implications inherent in his doing so, Judge Phou Pov Sun allowed
me to look through the Citipointe file in which the details of its complaint
against are revealed. I will deal with these in a letter to Ms Sam Mostyn
in the not-too-distant-future. ANd, now that I have a better understanding of
what has been taking place behind the scenes, I will be meeting with Judge Phou
Pov Sun again in the not-too-distant future.
In the meantime,
please accept this as my second formal complaint:
(2) As a member
of Citipointe church, was Geoff Armstrong in breach of the ACFID Code of
Conduct when, on 24th Feb, he conducted his 'thorough investigation' of
Citipointe church?
Given the
supposed independence of ACFID it would be most inappropriate, Marc, for you to
'ring Geoff' to discuss this with him. Indeed, I would have thought any
off-the-record conversation you might have with Geoff about this matter (or
Chris Adams or anyone else from ACFID) would be a breach of the ACFID Code of
Conduct.
I amy copying
this to the Hon Julie Bishop, Foreign Minister, so that it is on file. And to
DFAT also, via the Australian Embassy.
best wishes
Marc got back to me with
the following:
Dear Mr
Ricketson,
I refer to my
letter to you of the 7 March (attached). In it I explain ACFID’s
willingness to address a complaint against any Code signatory organisation if
and when a complaint is lodged with ACFID. Any complaint will be addressed in
accordance with the principles and in line with the process as set out in the
Code of Conduct Implementation Guidance. As noted previously in correspondence
to you, the complaints process will respect the privacy and confidentially to
which the parties are entitled under the Privacy Act. This information conveyed
to you about ACFID's approach and procedures has been conveyed to
the Department of Foreign Affairs and to the CEO of Global Development Group.
We look forward to your full cooperation should you chose to make a formal
complaint regarding the matter you advocate upon regarding
the reunification of children.
Regards
And I got back to Marc with the
following:
Dear Marc
There is no
point in making a complaint against the Global Development Group's complicity
in the illegal removal and detention of Rosa and Chita in the absence of
certain documents. As I have written before:
“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 (in this
instance Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’, funded by Australian tax-deductible
dollars), has entered into with a government department in the country in which
such a removal has occurred?”
“In the event that Chanti and Chhork proceed, through
me, to make a complaint, will ACFID require of the Global Development Group that
it provide copies of all documents it has acquired from Citipointe church
relating to the legality of the church’s removal of Rosa and Chita and their
detention of the girls for five years during which time Chanti and Chhork have
repeatedly requested their return?”
These two
questions could be distilled down to:
“Do recipients of GDG aid (Australian tax-dollars) have
a right to be provided with copies of whatever contracts, agreements or MOUs an
NGO has entered into with government departments in the country in which the
aid recipients reside?”
ACFID refuses
to answer these questions.
I am now in
possession of sufficient information to pursue the matter of the illegal
removal of Rosa and Chita and acquisition of the relevant documents through the
Supreme Court in Queensland in Australian courts and do not require any
assistance from ACFID.
As far as
HAGAR is concerned, however, I have registered my complaint. The same applies
to Geoff Armstong's being a member of Citipointe church at the same time as he
was supposedly conducting a 'thorough investigation' of the church.
best wishes
James
Ricketson
I felt myself in familiar territory.
Such letters and emails can pass back and forth for weeks, months, with the end
result being no answers to any questions. The objective is to wear the person
asking the questions down and to sow as much confusion as possible such that
any supposedly independent person reading through the correspondence later can
write back to the questioner with something along the lines of, “Dear Mr
Ricketson, it is my understanding that the matters to which you refer have been
thoroughly canvassed in your correspondence with Marc Purcell and Chris Adams
this past six months. Our workload in this office is heavy and we can see no value
in continuing to communicate with you about
matters for which you have already been provided with adequate answers.”
Something along these lines. Spin
Doctoring 101
I wrote back to Marc and Chris:
The attached
letter for Ms Sam Mostyn, dated 9th Feb, speaks for itself. Please, Marc and
Chris, I do not want to waste my time with spin. If nothing else, what I
require and what natural justice demands, is an answer to the question:
"Do Chanti
and Chhork have a right to be provided with a copy of the pre-July 2008
MOU"? This requires only a 'yes' or a 'no' answer.
I have received no response
to this request to date. Nor do I expect one. Spin Doctors are incapable of
answering simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers. Their job is obfuscation. They are
paid to NOT answer questions whilst creating the illusion that they are
answering them!
I will include my letter to
Ms Sam Mostyn in a separate blog entry.
No comments:
Post a Comment