Corruption Coverups in NSW Child Protection - Issue 4 : The Ombudsman can’t interview DoCS personnel that won’t “Fess Up” to Fabricating Evidence
- Details
- Category: NSW Ombudsman
- Created: Friday, 10 August 2012 12:58
- Written by Michael Hart
In this issue we will continue to explore the role of the NSW Ombudsman in allowing Child Protection Authorities to fabricate evidence during Child “Protection” operations, simply to cover their arses.
They (DoCS) are allowed to falsify evidence to attribute their own misconduct to innocent, unsuspecting parents. We will continue with the same case as outlined in previous issues to demonstrate the lengths these government agencies go to hide the corruption.
In Issue One of Corruption Coverups we noted government workers used their power in the abuse investigation to falsify evidence before and during a child abuse investigation simply to cover up their own misconduct. The Ombudsman’s Ethical Fatigue prohibited him from acting. In Issue Two of Corruption Coverups we noted how the NSW Ombudsman had Conveniently Related Immediate Memory Exhaustion Syndrome (CRIMES) that prohibited him from understanding anything about the DoCS internal investigation into fabricated evidence. Indeed the NSW Ombudsman even claims, in writing with his own signature, that the fabricated evidence “was not false” from the DoCS investigation.
In fact it was recently shown that all the evidence that DoCS fabricated about protective services was indeed false and so was all the evidence the JIRT team fabricated about the parents refusing to access these non-existent services. Click to view Case
So despite a top level “investigation” by the CEO of DoCS (Annette Gallard) and the NSW Ombudsman (Bruce Barbour), they BOTH made false claims about the fabrication of evidence at DoCS. It appears quite clear that while ever the government is conducting an investigation into itself it will clear itself of fabricating evidence even if they have to lie to do so.
Why is this? Well while parents are treated in if they are evil and need interrogating and threatened in a hostile manner by JIRT teams the exact opposite approach is taken by the NSW Ombudsman when it comes to looking into corruption at DoCS/JIRTs. Even though the Ombudsman’s Act and the Community Services Act says the Ombudsman may conduct investigations into misconduct in these agencies the agencies have signed agreements to ensure that will never happen. Click to view relevant legislation
Ombudsman Act 1974 - Section 12 - Right to Complain
(1) Subject to this section, any person (including a public authority) may complain to the Ombudsman about the conduct of a public authority unless:
(2) Where a person wishes to make a complaint under subsection (1), the complaint may, with the consent of that person, be made on his or her behalf by a member of Parliament.
Their Memorandum Of Understandings effectively inhibit the Ombudsman from interrogating DoCS workers that engage in illegal activities, like the fabrication of evidence, in most cases.
Despite the Ombudsman being given the legislative responsibility to oversee and investigate complaints they have made agreements not to do this in general.
The Ombudsman’s policy is to ignore the corruption by refusing to investigate it unless the people doing it actually “fess up” to it.
In Section 5.1 of the Memorandum of Understanding it says:
“In general the Ombudsman emphasises the resolution of complaints rather than formal investigation and reporting.”
Exceptions to this rule would no-doubt occur if there is something in it for the Ombudsman. For example if he got some bad press or had some other political motivation. We noted he is a media puppy in Corruption Coverups Issue Three.
For the average plebian in the street just expect to be walked over by those in power as they want to hide the corruption of their buddies in positions of authority rather than any moral or just cause. Human morals has not evolved amongst those that wield power in the last 2000 years. The politically correct decision of Pontius Pilate to order the crucifixion of Jesus is reflected by those that make politically correct decisions these days in the name of “justice”.
Instead ordinary common-folk with legitimate complainants are labeled as “Unreasonable Complainants” when being persistent. The NSW Ombudsman has developed policies and courses on how to fob these legitimate complaints off.
See the Unreasonable Complaints Policy for both the definition and their tactics to fob you off:
In the case Alecomm has been following in Corruption Coverps the NSW Ombudsman’s office had fobbed of the complaint previously by saying it was untrue. When the parent went back to the Ombudsman after proving they were telling the truth in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal as shown above the Ombudsman now makes up a new excuse not to investigate the complaint.
They are (please listen to the audio recording)
- The Ombudsman cannot investigate the conduct of the officers in fabricating evidence it because it would mean they would have to actually get off their arse and actually do an investigation – which “frankly” they refuse to do.
- They also claim they can’t investigate it because the Government workers won’t “fess up” to their criminal activities so the Ombudsman’s Office just let them get away with it instead.
The NSW Ombudsman claims :
"The NSW Ombudsman is an independent and impartial watchdog. Our job is to make sure that agencies we watch over fulfill their functions properly and improve their delivery of services to the public."
The NSW Taxpayers pay millions each year to the Ombudsman to supposedly perform this “watchdog” task. Given they don’t seem to be able to get the agencies to “fess up” when they fabricate evidence, we are wondering if Alecomm readers think the NSW public deserve to get their money back.? Please let us know your thoughts below.
