Monday, May 26, 2014

# 70 Chanti and Chhork's request to GDG for information they are entitled to in accordance with the ACFID Code of Conduct, to which GDG is a signitory


Directors of the Global Development Group Board
Unit 6
734 Underwood Road
Rochedale, QLD 4123

23rd May 2014

Dear    David James Pearson
Geoffrey Winston Armstrong
Ofelia (fe) Luscombe
Alan Benson
David Robertson

We are the Cambodian mother and father of Chanti Rosa and Chanty Cheata. Our daughters have lived in Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ since 2008 against our wishes.
The Global Development Group (GDG), of which you are Executive Director, provides funding to Citipointe church’s ‘SHE Rescue Home.’ This funding has been approved, through the Australian Council for International Development, by AusAID.
The GDG is bound by the Australian Council for International Development Code of Conduct and is obliged, in accordance with the Code, to be ‘transparent’. The meaning of the word ‘transparent’ is clear in the Code of Conduct.
‘An organisation’s openness about its activities, providing information on what it 
is doing, where and how this takes place and how it is performing’.
Neither Citipointe church nor GDG has provided us with any of the information we have requested since Citipointe church removed our daughters from their home in 2008. Instead, the church keeps promising to return our daughters but never does.
We have read the ACFID Code of Conduct and understand that we, as parents of Rosa and Cheata, are known as ‘stakeholders.’ We read the following in the Code of Conduct:
B.1.1 Accountability to primary stakeholders
Signatory organisations will ensure that their purpose and processes are shaped by stakeholders and that their work is open to review and comment by partners and participants alike. In all instances those directly affected by aid and development activities are considered the primary stakeholders and their views afforded the highest priority.
Obligation:
Signatory organisations will prioritise accountability to local people and those directly 
affected by aid and development activities, prioritising their needs and rights
As stakeholders our views about Citipointe church’s refusal to return our daughters have been ignored. As stakeholders our needs and rights have been ignored. We are told that our rights are outlined in two Memoranda of Understanding Citipointe church entered into with the Cambodia government – the first in 2008 and the second in 2009. Citipoint church and your own GDG have refused to provide us with copies of the two MOUs so we do not know what our rights are or what we must do to have our daughters returned to us.
As a ‘signatory organisation’ (to the ACFID Code) the GDG is obliged to “analyse the needs and expectations of key stakeholders in all aid and development activities, pursuing informed and balanced accountability to each.” Our own needs and expectations have been ignored for nearly 6 years.
We request that the Global Development Group provide us with (a) Annual self-assessment by GDG for the years 2008 - 2014 “by the signatory organisation’s governing body”, and (b) a reason why our complaints to Citipointe since 2008 have been ignored. It is the responsibility of the GDG to see to it that there is  “an independent complaints handling and discipline process.”
Finally, the Code of Conduct is clear about the Global Development Group’s obligations:
“Obligations on the signatory organisation to be ethical and transparent in marketing, fundraising and reporting.”
Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ has behaved in an unethical way by presenting our daughters to sponsors and donors as victims of human trafficking. The ‘contract’ Citipointe tricked me, as mother, into signing on 31st July 2008 makes it clear that it was only the fact that the family was very poor at the time that caused me to ask the church for help for a short time. Rosa and Chita were not victims of human trafficking. I have never been a victim of human trafficking myself, even though Citipointe says that I was.
Could you please provide us both, as parents, with answers to our questions and with copies of any documents the Global Development Group has in its possession that relate to our daughters removal and detention by your funding partner, Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ – as you are required to do as signatories of the ACFID Code of Conduct?
Yem Chanti                                                                 Both Chhork
                        Mother                                                                        Father

# 69 ACFID Code of Conduct committee refuses to ask GDG to provide copies of MOUs in support of Citipointe's assertion that the church removed Rosa and Chita from their family in accordance with Cambodian law


ACFID Code of Conduct Committee
Australian Council for International Development
12 Napier Close, Deakin ACT 2600                                                 

23rd May 2014

Dear    Dr Sue-Anne Wallace
Greg Brown
John Gilmore
Bandula Gonsalkorale
Harwood Lockton
Dr Petrus Usmanij
Fadlullah Wilmot
Dr Simon Smith
Michelle Pearce
Julie Mundy

Earlier this month, with my assistance, Chanti and Chhork secured the legal representation of an Australian barrister by the name of Mr Michael Johnson.

Mr Johnson wrote to Citipointe church requesting that Rosa and Chita be returned to their family by 23rd May. Today. The girls have not been returned. I will forward, separately, the two pages of Mr Johnson’s letter to Citipointe.

In the meantime, distressed by the refusal of the ACFID Code of Conduct Committee to even acknowledge receipt of hers and her husband Chhork’s complaint about the continued detention of Rosa and Chita, Chanti has, with my help, read a translation of the ACFID Code of Conduct. With her newfound knowledge of her rights and with my assistance, Chanti has composed a letter for Mr Geoff Armstrong, Executive Director of the Global Development Group in her bid to get answers to questions that she is entitled, in accordance with the Code, to be provided answers to.

Chanti’s letter is now with a translator and will be ready for her to sign on Monday – at which point we will send it to the Global Development Group.

I imagine that Geoff Armstrong will ignore the letter, regardless of the ACFID Code of Conduct. This has been his response to all letters sent to him this past few months relating to the legality of Citipointe’s removal of Rosa and Chita. Through its funding of the ‘SHE Rescue Home’, and in accordance the ACFID Code of Conduct, GDG is complicit in Rosa and Chita’s continued detention. GDG’s refusal to provide copies of the MOUs to Chanti and Chhork is a breach of the ACFID Code of Conduct but this will be of no concern to Mr Armstrong because your committee does not adhere to the Code itself.

If experience is anything to go by, the ACFID Code of Conduct Committee will, as it has with Chanti and Chhork’s complaint, stand by GDG’s refusal to respond to Chanti and Chhork’s letter. So be it. The legal battle over the custody of Rosa and Chita has a long way to go yet and there will be egg on a lot of faces when justice is eventually achieved.

best wishes

James Ricketson

# 68 legal letter to Citipointe church re the church's illegal removal of Rosa and Chita in 2008




Private & Confidential
Senior Pastor Leigh Ramsey
Pastor Brian MulheranCitipointe Church
PO Box 2111
Mansfield, Queensland
Australia, 4122
2nd May, 2014.

Dear Pastors Ramsey and Mulheran,

IN THE MATTER OF CHANTHY ROZA & CHANTHY CHEATA – CAMBODIAN CHILDREN

I am formally and legally authorised, engaged and instructed to write to you by my clients - the parents of Chanthy Roza and Chanthy Cheata (“two children”).

My clients have requested that their two children be immediately released into their legal custody, guardianship and care and by no later than Friday, 23rd May, 2014.

I am instructed by clients that their two children are currently unlawfully detained by Citipointe Church (“Citipointe”) control in Cambodia against the express wishes of my clients sas the two children’s legal parents. I am advised that the two children have now been unlawfully detained for some five (5) years. I am instructed that the two children were removed from my clients’ legal custody, care and guardianship by Citipointe pursuant to an alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed between Citipointe and the Government of Cambodia in 2008 and subsequently in 2009. 

As I understand it from my clients both MOUs were held out or represented to my clients (as the children’s parents) as the foundation for Citipointe’s legal rights, conferred on it by the Cambodian government, to remove and or detain the two children againast the express wishes of my clients.

I am instructed that since 2008, requests have been repeatedly made by my clients and their advocates for the physical production of one or both such documents evidencing Citipointe’s legal rights to remove and or detain the two children. I am instructed that no MOU executed by Citipointe and Government of Cambodia has been produced by Citypointe to substantiate its legal rights of access and or detention of the two children. 

Therefore, in the absence of Citipointe being able to produce forthwith any official government conferred MOU legally executed, I am instructed by my clients to request Citipointe release the said two children to the legal custody, care and guardianship of their parents forthwith. 

For clarity and to avoid misinterpretation, Friday 23rd May is an indication of the very latest date for the return of the children to my client’s custody, guardianship and care.
Given the deep sensitivity of this matter and the length of time involved, this letter has also been copied to the following:
1
.    The Under-Secretary of State of the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Cambodia.
    The Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs; and
  the Australian Ambassador to Cambodia, representing the Government of Australia.

As Citipointe is an Australian registered charity within the meaning of relevant Commonwealth legislation, Citipointe will clearly appreciate the considerable reputational issues at stake in this matter. These potentially include the substantial bilateral ties between Australia and Cambodia.

There is also domestic Australian political, community and ethical sensitivities at play. In particular, for Citipointe, there may be significant Australian or international legal considerations in play should Citipointe continue to decline the said two children to their parents against their clear, express and unequivocal demand. I understand the Australian media is also closely following the progress of this matter.

On behalf of my clients, I look forward, initially, to confirmation of Citipointe’s intention to release the two children, and secondly, specific details regarding the completion the children’s release at the earliest opportunity. For confirmation purposes I may be contacted by direct email. 

With compliments

MR MICHAEL A. JOHNSON BA., LLB (UQ)., M.PHIL  (Cambridge); Ex.Ed (Harvard)
Barrister-At-Law of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

# 67 Chhork's father dies; he wants Rosa and Chita to attend their grandfather's funeral


Leigh Ramsey
322 Wecker Road
Carindale
QLD 4152

22nd May 2014

Dear Leigh

Chhork’s father, Rosa and Chita’s grandfather, died last night. Chanti and Chhork want Rosa and Chita to be present for the funeral – which they are arranging right now. 

You have not allowed Rosa and Chita to take part in any family weddings, get-togethers, ceremonies, rituals or cultural celebrations this past six years. If Citipointe has any respect at all for the bonds of family, you should allow the girls to attend the funeral of their grandfather.

best wishes

James

Monday, May 12, 2014

# 66 Competence of the ACFID Code of Conduct committee


The Hon Julie Bishop
Minister for Foreign Affairs
House of Representatives, Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600                                                                          

12th May 2014

Dear Minister

re Competence of ACFID Code of Conduct committee?

Within a three day time frame, the Australian Council for International Development Code of Conduct committee corresponded with me twice – on 2nd May and 5th May. That the email and letter contradict each other will be evident from a reading with both. I will commence with the email I received on 5th May:
“We are following up on your complaint against the Global Development Group. The investigation team has completed its investigation of the complaint. The team has prepared a draft report to the parties which – as outlined in the Code of Conduct Implementation Guidance – I am now providing to both parties to the complaint to correct any matters of fact. I look forward to receiving your response within five working days of the date of this email. The investigative team will consider any responses received during that period when they finalise their report.”
There is no name attached to the sender of this email but one thing is abundantly clear – both GDG and myself had five days to respond to the email. Now consider the letter sent by Dr Sue-Anne Wallace on 2nd May – three days earlier!
Dear Mr Ricketson,

I refer to your letter date 30 April 2014 and its enclosure addressed to myself and members of the ACFID Code of Conduct Committee.

I have considered the matter you have raised. After consultation with other members of the Committee it has been determined that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Code Committee. Here it is noted that Citipointe Church is not an ACFID member and that issues relating to legall custody of children are more appropriately dealt with by the Cambodian legal system where the children reside.

Finally, I note that the ACFID Code of Conduct complaints process is a confidential one based on the good faith of all the parties. For the record I note here that I am aware of your regular posts on a personal internet blog about this matter and a report in the Cambodian Daily dated 4 April 2014. The latter refers to unlawful activity by you in relation to this matter,

Yours faithfully,
Dr Sue-Anne Wallace
Chair, Code of Conduct Committee

Leaving aside the fact that I have never lodged a formal complaint against Citipointe, for reasons I have made abundantly clear in several leters, how can Dr Sue Anne Wallace tell me on 2nd May that the ACFID Code of Conduct committee has no jurisdiction to investigate and then, three days later, inform me that it has completed its investigation and invite me to respond to it within five days!?
There are many adjectives that could be applied to the inherent contradictions between the letter and email – none of them flattering. I will leave it to yourself, Minister, to figure out whether or not the Code of Conduct committee is competent to fulfill its tasks in accordance with the clearly laid out dictates of the ACFID Code of Conduct.
In my most recent letters to Dr Sue Anne Wallace I have pointed out in some detail the many ways in which the Code of Conduct committee is in breach of the Code in acting on the presumption that there is no link between GDG and Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’. Some more evidence, quoting from the Code, italics mine.
Structure
The Code sets out standards in the three areas of accountability:
Program Principles – including Obligations for effectiveness in aid and development activities, human rights and working with partner agencies.
Public engagement – including Obligations on the signatory organisation to be ethical and transparent in marketing, fundraising and reporting.
Organisation – including Obligations for governance, management, financial controls, treatment of staff and volunteers, complaints handling processes and compliance with legal requirements.
The Global Development Group, as a signatory to the Code, is obliged to be accountable in all the ways described here. And, as the members of the Code of Conduct committee should know, “the Principles and Obligations set out in the Code” are “contractually binding.”
In short, the Global Development Group’s degree of contractual responsibility vis a vis the ACFID Code for the actions of its partner, Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’ is indisputable. The Global Development Group is in breach of the Code. How is it that the Code of Conduct committee can pretend otherwise?
At the outset my intention was merely to get Chanti and Chhork’s daughters returned to their care – an objective I have been pursuing for more than five years. However, Ms Sam Mostyn’s refusal to answer any questions over a period of months, combined with the Code of Conduct committee’s clumsy attempts to absolve the Global Development group of any responsibility, make me wonder whether there are, in reality, any checks and balances at all when it comes to the distribution of AusAID approved funds? If the ACFID Code of Conduct committee can go to such lengths to protect the Global Development Group, what else is going on within what used to be known as AusAID that you as Minister don’t know about but should be aware of?
I have just arrived back in Phnom Penh to discover that Chanti and Chhork – the parents of the two girls illegally detained by the ‘SHE Rescue Home’ - have bought a second tuk tuk. This is so that whilst Chhork earns a living with tuk tuk # 1, Chanti can ferry Srey Ka, James and Kevin to and from school in tuk tuk # 2. Chanti has also asked me if I could help she and Chhork in finding a good school within Phnom Penh for Rosa and Chita to attend. The school that Srey Ka, James and Kevin are attending is good but it is limited in terms of the subjects it teaches.
Chanti and Chhork want Rosa and Chita to get the best possible education and do not believe this can be achieved within reasonable driving distance of the village in which they live. I agree with them and to this end am now looking for a school in Phnom Penh where Rosa and Chita can board during the week and go home at the weekends. I have found one but have yet to check to see if it is suitable. Paradoxically, the boarding option we are now exploring will, if we are successful, result in precisely the same scenario that Pastor Leigh Ramsey offered in 2008 and then reneged on a few weeks later when she got Chanti to sign the fraudulent 31st July 2008 ‘contract’.
I have asked the following question many times now, but received no answer from Marc Purcell, Ms Sam Mostyn or Dr Sue-Anne Wallace and the ACFID Code of Conduct committee:
“Do parents in the 3rd world whose children are removed by Australian NGOs (supposedly working in accordance with the ACFID Code of Conduct) have a right to be provided with documents relating to the legality of their children’s removal; a right to (a) be provided with copies of  MOUs, (b) be provided with reasons for their children’s removal, (c) be provided with an avenue of appeal against the decision to remove, (d) to be informed as to their visitation rights, (e) be able to request that their children not be indoctrinated into a branch of the Christian faith, and (f) of what they must do to get their children back?”

The lack of response to these questions on the part of the President of ACFID, the Chief Executive of ACFID and the Chair of the Code of Conduct committee makes it clear, despite the Code, that the recipients of AusAID funding or AusAID-approved funding (in the case of the Global Development Group) have no rights at all and are ripe to be exploited by unscrupulous NGOs such as Citipointe’s ‘SHE Rescue Home’.
best wishes
James Ricketson
Ms Sam Mosatyn, President, ACFID
Marc Purcell, Chief Executive, ACFID
Dr Sue-Anne Wallace, Chair, ACFID Code of Conduct committee
Ms Alison Burrow, Australia’s Ambassador to Cambodia
Various media outlets