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
No comments:
Post a Comment