EDUCATION - KEEPING THEM HONEST

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TRIBUNAL DECISION NO 1

A decision has been handed down today (22 May 2009) at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in relation to an FOI application seeking access to an investigation into allegations that the DET have said has taken place.  I didn't get to see the decision before it was made public.   I will of course be appealling and taking this matter to the Supreme Court.   Although their might be a substantial number of records as the DET have been trying their best to cover up these complaints  (there have been at least 8 different complaints involving different children and years) this on it's own is not enough to deny the application and to not even attempt to collect the documents as Mr. Montgomery clearly stated that he agreed with my assertion that the majority of documents would be in the same spot.  So on the basis of maybe some documents being elsewhere and needing to be found he rejected the application agreeing with the DET that it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources?  It could well be that there are no documents in these other locations and the shredder has arrived first.  Documentation in relation to the investiation of formal complaints needs to be kept as per record keeping requirements and they should have to produce these documents.  The request is not in any way substantial given the situation or unreasonable as it is a child protection matter and therefore an appeal will be lodged

Here are my initial thoughts.   This was an application to get access to documents from the DET that relate to formal complaints that we made initially against the Leader of the Selective Schools Unit  (Magda Pollak) and subsequently against other Units in the DET who were not properly doing their job as per policy and procedure require and whose failure to afford us procedural fairness and natural justice put children at risk of harm whilst protecting persons employed in high positions in the DET who had prejudice,  were biased and who were bullies and who were failing in their duty of care.

 

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/adtjudgments/2009nswadt.nsf/f1a6baff573a075dca256862002912ec/8762f72a3229ed36ca2575bd0002639e?OpenDocument

 

If you cannot access the site through the link just go to the Administrative Decisions Website and follow the Decisions tab in the General Division.

 

It is unbelievable that the DET can say that it will be an unreasonable diversion of resources to get documents that by Law we should be entitled to.  The DET have used the so called 'investigation' to ignore subsequent allegations and complaints even aimed at other members of our family and relate to victimisation, bullying, neglect and misconduct.   It is unbelievable that this determination to deny such important documents can be upheld by a Tribunal on the basis that it will be an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide the investigation reports espeically when the Tribunal is supposed to be there to protect the little people from being stepped on by the big guns.   

It seems that the more public servants spread the paper work around, the less detailed records they keep, the more lies that they tell and the more people that they involve then the more chances they have of being protected and being able to cover up matters of misconduct, bullying, neglect,  fraud and even corruption.

 

It is so interesting the way that the decision is written.  At number 41 of my original submission that was in response to the DET's submission and I was answering their headings that was filed in the ADT it says

41.       Procedural fairness is something that is of significant public interest and concern

40        Concerned citizens using FOI have a valid and important role to play in scrutinizing government conduct and promoting accountability.

Whether the DET provided adequate justification in its statement of reasons.

42        The safety well being and protection of children is of paramount concern and the           

DET have a duty of care to protect children.    I do not believe that the DET have provided adequate justification in its Statements/Submissions.

The ADT have written that part of my submission in the decision like this:

    41 Concerned citizens using FOI have a valid and important role to play in scrutinizing government     conduct and promoting accountability.

    40. Procedural fairness is something that is of significant public interest and concern. Whether the     DET provided adequate justification in its statement of reasons.

    42 The safety well being and protection of children is of paramount concern and the DET have a duty     of care to protect children. I do not believe that the DET have provided adequate justification in its     Statements/Submissions.

Whether the DET provided adequate justification in its statement of reasons" is a heading' and should have been numbered (n) it is not supposed to be at the end of the sentence where it presents.  It completely changes the context. 

You have to wonder how they would make such a significant mistake.  I have written to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal asking that they amend the decision to properly reflect what was said.

I  find it hard to believe how systematic psychological abuse, bullying and neglect of children served by members of the Department of Education cannot be correctly regarded as a child protection issue.  Our children are not safe.

For the record -  IN relation to the first part of the FOI application that dealt with a request for access to the documents that show the formal process used to deem me vexatious as has been presented by members of the DET  I didn’t pursue the Vexatious section of the FOI application because I was provided with a letter from the DET in response to my application that clearly said that I have never been formally deemed vexatious by the Minister or by anybody in the DET.   There is an Amendment application waiting for a decision to be handed down in relation to Amending the records.  Magda Pollak (the person whom we allege is responsible) is the one who presented me in Submissions to Ministers as vexatious and to others that I had been deemed  vexatious by the Minister when in reality the person who put that label on me was Magda Pollak and she did it to discredit me and protect herself so that they did not have to  investgiate the complaints and she did it because she is a bully and she wanted to discredit me to cover up her misconduct.  The DET know this but still she is promoted and sits at the helm at her job.   I only found out I was presented as having been deemed vexatious in documents that were produced under FOI last year.   I was not given a chance to defend myself.  I was not ever directly told by the DET – they just kept filing our correspondence away and treating us like dirt, presenting the matter as invesitgated when this is a lie and  me an angry mother who was vexatious so that we present as not having any evidence and trying to make trouble.   When in reality the problem is them!

Now the DET wants the public to  believe that if a person makes more than one complaint and those complained about find it annoying then they can just refer to the complainant as vexatious (in shorthand of course) and file their correspondence away regardless whether it is a legidimate complaint.  Never to be looked at again.

I will add to this as I absorb the information.

Being bullied doubles a child's psychotic chances

There is an interesting article in the paper today

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25438022-5001028,00.html

This doesn't surprise me.  When at the peak of the bullying and victimisation of my children I was seriously concerned about their mental health and well-being.  I informed the DET and they did nothing.  Despite the fact that I had told them so many times how these issues were impacting my children's health and well-being not once did anybody actually ask my children if they were alright and whether they needed any help or support.  No counseling was offered.   The response we got to our letter letting the DET know that this issue was causing emotional and psychological harm was that my son was targeted and victimised at his school.  He was formally accused of bullying an accusation that was later found to be a witch hunt and untrue as he wasn't even at school on that day (confirmed by the roll) and contrary to the teachers statements that said that they saw him do it.

The only reason that my children have come out the other side relatively okay and just with really bad memories and attitudes to school is because my husband and I have fought for them all the way.  

It is a sad system when the Education Department ignores the plight of children who are being victimised and bullied so as to protect the reputation of bureaucrats and Units in the Education system.

To date the issues have still not been resolved and this creates a situation where there is no closure.  Until there is closure we will continue our quest for Justice and accountability.