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