ALECOMM

Corruption Coverups in NSW Child Protection - Issue Two: The Ombudsman

Details

Category: NSW Ombudsman

Created: Saturday, 05 February 2011 07:46

Written by Michael Hart

In this issue we delve deeper into the complaints mechanisms of the  Ombudsman, and look at how complaints are passed around in a manner which enables Government agencies to pass the buck and give other agencies excuses for the deficiencies in Child Protection.

Firstly, we note that the Ombudsman passes the buck for investigating complaints back to the agencies themselves, and on many occasions, back to the original person, that was complained about. That is: instead of being "a government official who hears and investigates complaints by private citizens against other officials or government agencies" as defined in the dictionary, the NSW Ombudsman only acts as a conduit for the complaints and the complaints are only dealt with by the agencies themselves. (Image 1.

This is a great way to make it seem like the NSW Ombudsman does something useful. However, when "the whole ethos of the department is to cover their tracks" one wonders how effective this method of "investigation" is. We should ask if the NSW Ombudsman's complaints mechanisms contribute to that ethos?

To examine this issue Alecomm will use the same case as we did in Issue #1. We note that the complainant had previously indicated to DoCS numerous times that the services they claimed to have in place were not there. The first being during a recorded video interview by the J.I.R.T. unit itself and later by the local Member of Parliament. Despite these complaints the NSW Ombudsman claimed that this had not yet been done and needed to be done again (Image 1).

Naturally, since (as previously noted) that the ethos of the department is to cover their tracks they still claimed they were there. This is despite the conflicting evidence that the complainant had already given to the Ombudsman and the Department which will be detailed in a later edition.

What is interesting, however, is that the NSW Ombudsman could not quite remember if DoCS had done the investigation and whether they had received the results. When it came to letting off the police for accepting the false information the Ombudsman had decided the DoCS investigation into the complaint had been done (Image 2). However, when it came to determining whether the DoCS investigation into the complaint had been done properly the Ombudsman refused to comment by claiming he did not have it (Image 3). These claims are ALL IN THE SAME LETTER signed by the NSW Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour.

We are therefore wondering if the NSW Ombudsman also suffers work stress resulting in Conveniently Related Immediate Memory Exhaustion Syndrome (CRIMES). Alecomm advocates screening for CRIMES in all NSW Public Service.

Given these all came in the same letter we at Alecomm would like to ask  the NSW Ombudsman, Bruce Barbour:

Do you have the results of the DoCS investigation into the complaint or don't you? It gets very difficult to follow your logic when your reasoning changes according to your memory lapses. You are welcome to provide the answer publicly in the comments section below...

Alecomm once again hopes readers enjoyed reading how the NSW Ombudsman investigates deficiencies in the NSW Child Abuse Industry. In the next issue of Corruption Coverups in NSW Child Protection we will delve deeper into this case from the Ombudsman's perspective.  We look forward to your comments in the section below.