Peter & Jolanda Challita

42 Carramar Crescent
MIRANDA NSW 2228

PH: 9501 1072 :

6 April 2007

Mr Michael Conaty
NSW Ombudsman
Level 24,
580 George Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Sir

RE: YOUR REFERENCE: C/2006/5106

I refer to your letter dated 16 March 2007 and am concerned about the amount of lies that
the Department of Education/Selective Schools Unit has presented to you that you appear
to have accepted on face value, despite the evidence/documents not supporting this view,
especially given that this information has influenced your decision not to investigate
these serious ongoing formal allegations that involve educational neglect and systematic
psychological abuse and harm of children.

I will deal with the allegations that I presented in sections in the manner set out by you in
your letter in response to my request for a formal investigation:

1. The Minister for Education promised an investigation would take place,

which did not occur.

You state in your letter that my letter to the then Minister for Education, Mr. Refshauge
of 24 June 2003 crossed with another letter from the Minister to me dated 17 June 2003
asking me to contact Mr. Wingrave. This is not true! In my letter dated 24 June 2003
I am responding to the Ministers letter dated 17 June 2003 and that is clearly noted
in the letter – see attached and marked “A”. The Minister Mr. Refshauge then
responded to my letter of 24 June 2003 on 4 August 2003 advising that a formal
investigation would be commenced and that Mr Chris Carroll would contact me –
see Annexure “B”.

Mr. Carroll DID NOT contact me as promised by the Minister for Education nor did any
investigation take place. When I tried to enquire about the matter I was unable to get an
answer or response as to what was going on.

1
This raises serious questions in relation to the undated letter that you indicate resulted as
a result of a submission lodged by Magda Pollak (one of the main persons that we allege
is responsible) on 2 July with reference (RML 03/5996) (the same RML reference as the
letter to me advising that an investigation had been commenced), see attached and
marked “H”. This undated letter was never previously seen or received by me directly or
under any of our FOI applications nor has the submission dated 2 July 2003 ever been
provided or produced despite these documents being requested under FOI!

You acknowledge that in ‘the undated letter’ it presents that my families concerns
were investigated by the Ombudsman’s office when you know that this is not true
and that the Ombudsman has never investigated the matter. The whole letter is
based on misrepresentation and lies yet you allow it to be used and carry so much
weight? The Department has repeatedly presented the matter as being investigated
by the Ombudsman and by the Department of Education when clearly this is not
true and this action and advice has worked to discredit and defame my family and
to deny us protection and fair impartial and unbiased decisions and treatment.

At no time was the Department waiting for me to contact Mr. Wingrave in relation to the
formal complaint initiated by Mr. Refshauge on 4 August and at no time prior to the 17th
January 2004 did I refuse to meet Bob Wingrave - see data file marked with Annexure “C
and letters dated 17 January 2003, 4 March 2004, 19 July 2004, 26 August 2004 and
marked with Annexures D, E, F, and G”.

It concerns me that despite the fact that your letter clearly indicates and acknowledges
that this matter has never been investigated that you can go on to say that it will not be
investigated. The Minister ordered an investigation; Policy and Procedure require that
allegations of this nature be subject to a formal investigation. The time frame in
relation to these allegations is irrelevant as complaints were made well within the
required time period and frame. The fact that the system has failed to provide my
family with procedural fairness and natural justice in a timely, or any manner, should not
be something that they can then use to justify ignoring and avoiding addressing
allegations and/or formal complaints.

It is not the role of the Selective Schools Unit to decide for themselves what the terms
of resolution should be. There are Policies and Procedures in place that deal with this
process to ensure transparency, integrity and accountability that the Department has
seriously breached, many times over.

In relation to the original allegations/complaints made in 2002/3 with regard to my two

eldest children I was advised that the Ombudsman would not investigate any of the
allegations that I raised in relation to the Applications and/or Appeals because I couldn’t
get (as they had either been destroyed or the Department wouldn’t provide it) the
evidence/documents that the Ombudsman said I needed to prove, to their satisfaction, that
the scores had been added up wrong in the first instance, see letter attached dated 28
April 2003 and marked with the letter “I”. The letter clearly states that a key issue was
whether I had provided evidence that the department calculated the score wrongly. The

2
Ombudsman considered we had not done so and refused to investigate or address the
complaints. The letter also stated that the Ombudsman would not investigate the
handling of my daughters application because she had already been admitted to one
school and that there was no purpose in investigating the matter. What the Ombudsman
didn’t address is that my daughter appealed the decision not to place her in the school of
her choice and the score presented by the Selective Schools unit to the Appeals panel on
which they were required to make their decision was a manipulated and incorrectly
calculated lower score and a misrepresentation of the facts.

My family took the Department of Education to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

(ADT) to get these documents so as to prove what we knew to be true and what we are
alleging. The ADT handed down judgment on the 13 April 2006 that the Department of
Education was ordered provide the documents in relation to the calculation of the scores
as sought. $25,000.00 later and sometime down the track my family was provided with
the document that the Ombudsman’s office said we needed to prove the scores had been
calculated wrongly and that was required in order to investigate the earlier complaints
and, of course, the subsequent complaints and allegations. This document clearly shows
that the Department has acted improperly in the calculation and presentation of the scores
and this document was provided to your office in September 2006 with a request that the
matter be subject to a proper and fair investigation so as to protect the children. Your
letter makes no reference to that document or request and just states that the matter was
previously finally closed and is now too old? This action clearly denies my family
procedural fairness and natural justice.

2. You did not receive an outcome to the “Responding to Suggestions,

Complaint and Allegations” form you lodged in June 2004 in regard to your
daughter Katie’s writing Ella test 2004 and your sons selective High School
placement for 2004.

My complaint was that the reason given in the letter from the Legal office of the
Department of Education for not investigating fresh allegations of bias and victimisation
lodged in 2004 was that they referred to similar allegations as in 2002/3 and that these
allegations have already been investigated. This is, by your own admission, NOT TRUE
as these earlier complaints and allegations have never been investigated.

I enclose herewith a copy of internal emails dated 2 June 2004, 5 July 2004 and 8 August
2004 attached and marked with the letters “J”, “K” and “L”, clearly showing that the
complaint was not investigated together with a copy of a letter from the Legal Directorate
in relation to fresh allegations in 2004 dated marked with the letter “M” and dated 19
August in which it states that they will not investigate fresh allegations made as they
are similar allegations than those previously made and that those allegations had been
investigated and closed?. It is clear from these documents that the Department is not
telling the truth and is conspiring to cover up the matter whilst continuing to victimize the
children.

3
 3. Continued involvement of DET officers in dealing with your family despite
your requests these officers should not be involved.

The fact that the complaints have never been accepted and properly acknowledged and
investigated by the Department or the Ombudsman’s office have ensured that the people
we allege are responsible have continued to be permitted to process my children’s
applications and deal with my families complaints and to target, bully and discriminate
against innocent children. The evidence I have provided clearly shows that these
people were fully involved in my families further applications including playing an active
voting role in the Appeals panels despite formal allegations against them and despite
specific requests that they not be permitted to have anything to do with my family given
the circumstances and nature of complaints against them. This is a clear breach as this is
a conflict of interests/duties and raises some serious child protection issues.

The Department of Education did not have an independent Probity Officer at the
meetings, they had one of the officers from the Department, and the officer involved had
already been involved in this matter and had been briefed, he was not impartial as he was
presented to be.

4. Mr Dave Wasson’s participation in a decision making process despite

evidence via Freedom of Information that he had “been fully involved
in the matter of our previous complaints and other children”.

Mr Wasson, from the Educational Measurement Directorate was originally presented to

us as somebody who had not had anything previously to do with this matter or my
children and was therefore an impartial and unbiased person to process my younger
daughter Amanda’s applications. The evidence produced under FOI clearly shows that
this is not the case and that he was extensively involved in the matter with my older
children and he was well aware that this matter had not been subject to an investigation as
ordered by the Minister and knew of the allegations that were being made. He is factored
into emails and is also mentioned and involved in numerous file memos that specifically
refer to the fact that the investigation ordered by the Minister never took place, despite it
being continuously presented as though it had.

5. The failure of the DET to honour agreements made at the ADT in August
2003.

I again re-iterate. Mr Wingrave is one of the persons that I had made formal allegations
against of bias and victimisation. I had advised the Minister for Education that due to the
manner that he had treated my family previously and the seriousness of the allegations
against him that we didn’t feel safe in his presence and that we wanted, and believed we
should be entitled, to deal with impartial and independent persons in relation to this
complaint. The Department would not agree to this. See Judgment from ADT dated 13
April 2006 annexed and marked “N” – 10 pages.

4
All the agreements made at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 18 August 2003
have still not been honoured by the Department of Education. There are Policies and
Procedures and Codes of Conduct in place that the Department has seriously breached,
many times over.

If the DET is prepared to provide a safe environment with access to all the information
required, including test answer templates, in relation to all my children’s Opportunity
Class and Selective High School tests, including my daughter Amanda’s I will be happy
to have this FOI aspect of the ADT agreement finalized. I also request that when the
issues are being discussed in relation to the process used by the Department and in
relation to the missing documents and discrepancies shown on the documents that I will
require an independent person to those involved from the Department of Education and a
Solicitor to be present together with my support person and I seek that this appointment
be at a later date to the viewing of the tests so as to enable us time to process the
information presented at the viewing of the tests and prepare for the meeting. This is in
line with the original agreement. I seek your written confirmation that this will be agreed
upon and the Department will honour their agreements in full.

6. Destruction of the following documents

a. Selective school test paper and original answer sheets in 2002 for
placement for 2003 for Danny Challita
b. Selective School test paper and original answer sheets in 2002 for
placement in 2003 for Katie Challita.

You state in your letter that the documents were destroyed by the Australian
Council for Educational Research Limited (ACER) shortly before the request was
made to have them put aside. I put it to you that you have been told a lie. We
requested these original documents be set aside under an FOI application in November
2002. The Department challenged our right to access these particular answer sheets and
test documents. We corresponded extensively in relation to access to these original
documents there was an internal review. On 16 May 2003 I lodged an Application at the
ADT for forced access to these original documents – see attached and marked with the
letter “O” On 18 June 2003 the matter was listed for planning meeting at the ADT see
annexure marked with the letter P. I attach a copy of an email from John Lindsay
from ACER that clearly states that the original answer sheets were destroyed on 18
June 2003 – attached and marked with the letter “Q”. The same day the matter was
listed for planning meeting at the ADT – see attached! The Department of Education is
again lying and not telling the truth. The documents were not destroyed before the
request was made to have them put aside, they were destroyed on the day the matter was
being first put before the ADT to force access to those exact documents.

This clearly shows a breach in Policy, the State Records Act and in the Ombudsman’s
Maladministration or wrong Conduct Act.

These test papers were in relation to the initial, and at the time current, conflicts. They
were not in relation to past conflicts as you have been advised. That you believe that

5
there is absence of evidence of wrong conduct by the authority is just bizarre given the
evidence that my family have provided.

7. Provision of documents ordered at the ADT on 13 April 2006.

Throughout these matters and proceedings the Department of Education have used delay
tactics so that time factors come into play, they have destroyed documents and tampered
with scores and papers and avoided providing documentation even when ordered to do so
by the Court. That I am forced to take the matter to the Supreme Court to get access to
all the documents ordered by the ADT to be produced in April 2006 is just plain wrong.
That I can find no avenue to get protection and justice for my children is unreal and
grossly unfair.

8. That Ms Pollak gave evidence before the ADT in December 2006 that was
“untrue and misrepresented the matter”.

You advise that the Ombudsman’s office is not permitted under the Ombudsman’s Act to
investigate this type of conduct? This shows the Ombudsman’s office as being incapable
of fulfilling its role as a corruption watchdog and investigatory body.

9. Misrepresentation in Annual Report.

You state in your letter that I advised that the DET had misrepresented the financial
implications of our complaint in the Freedom of Information section of its most recent
Annual report. I advise that what I stated was that in the submissions by the Selective
Schools Unit to the Ministers etc., produced under FOI, copies of which I forwarded to
your office, it is noted in all submissions that there are no financial implications in
relation to this matter and I know this for a fact not to be true as do you.

I advised you that the Annual report did not include the 2 (out of the three) FOI matters
that progressed for hearing and were heard over 3 days in the Administrative Decisions
Tribunal on 18 October, 29 November and 1 December 2005, see attached and marked
with the letter “R”. The annual report just refers to one FOI Application that the
Judiciary Member referred back to the Department for consideration in relation to the
fees the Department sought to charge. The report presents this FOI issue as though the
complaint was withdrawn and this is not true – see attached Decision by the Judiciary
Member and marked with the letter “S”. There is no mention anywhere in the annual
report that there were 3 days of hearings in relation to the other 2 separate FOI issues in
2005. This is significant and clearly shows that the Department is covering this matter up.

10. More recent decisions

You state that you have reviewed the papers that I have provided in relation to my
daughter Amanda’s selective high school applications and that you do not believe these
disclose evidence of wrong conduct by the authority that would justify investigation
under the Ombudsman’s Act.

6
 Despite the fact that we formally requested that Magda Pollak not be involved in
anything to do with my daughter as there have been serious allegations made against her,
documents produced under FOI and that are in your possession clearly show that my
daughters Selective High School application was controlled and processed internally by
Magda Pollak and given to others to sign their name as though it came from them. This
is a clear conflict of duties/interests and is in breach of the Ombudsmans
Maladministration and wrong conduct Act.

You will note in the Submission attached and dated 13 Januarry 2006 Magda Pollack
makes reference to the IQ report lodged by my daughter to support my daughters
application for Selective High School placement see annexure marked with the letter “T”
on page 4 of 8 pages. Magda Pollak presents the IQ report in the submission as the
Stanford Binet LM (SBLM), she then goes on to say that this is an old outdated test that
Gerric, (Gifted Research Centre at the University of New South Wales), uses to achieve
higher inflated marks and it is an invalid test and that the Department of Education does
not accept this IQ report.. This is a total misrepresentation of facts and a lie. The IQ
report that we presented was the Stanford Binet (1V) see attached and marked with the
letter “R”. The SB4 is not an old outdated report, it is a current and active report and
findings are valid and accepted by the Department of Education. This is not the first time
that Magda Pollak has misrepresented the type of IQ report presented in order to discount
the findings and not factor it in.

This is a clear conflict of duties/interests and is in breach of the Ombudsmans

Maladministration and wrong conduct Act.

My question to you once again is “What evidence do you need?” I have provided ample
evidence of lies; bias, misrepresentations, tampering and manipulation just to name a few
and it doesn’t seem to be enough. What does the Ombudsman require in order to
investigate serious allegations that involve children?

You also do not appear to have addressed the issue of documents produced under
FOI showing me as having been deemed vexatious early in 2004 by Magda Pollack,
a key player that we allege is responsible, and the matter being presented in internal
emails/memos as having been closed on that basis that I have been deemed a
vexatious correspondent. The Department of Education has never directly notified me
of this, they have black-marked my family internally and unfairly without giving us an
opportunity to defend ourselves. All our complaints and allegations were lodged in
writing and as per policy and procedure require and within the required time frames and
were supported by extensive documentation/evidence. There was nothing vexatious in
our correspondence just desperate pleas to be afforded procedural fairness and natural
justice so as to protect the children. This action clearly shows victimization on the part
of the Department of Education.

Section 26 of the Ombudsman Act 1974 lists the following types of conduct that we can report about:

Contrary to Law (s.26(1)(a))

7
Unreasonable (s.26(1)(b))
Unjust (s.26(1)(b))
Oppressive (s.26(1)(b))
Improperly discriminatory (s.26(1)(b))Law or practice unreasonable, unjust, oppressive
or improperly discriminatory (s.26(1)(c))
Improper motives (s.26(1)(d))
Irrelevant grounds/ considerations (s.26(1)(d))
Mistake of fact (s.26(1)(e))
Failure to give reasons (s.26(1)(f))
Otherwise wrong (s.26(1)(g))

There are numerous and excessive breaches in the Ombudsman’s’ Act that have not been
acted upon.

I request a formal review of the Ombudsman’s decision. This matter is serious as it

involves systematic bias, victimization, discrimination, misconduct and a conspiracy to
cover up that involves children. There are serious child protection issues that need to
be addressed. My husband and I once again request that our family be afforded
procedural fairness and natural justice and this matter be subject to a proper and fair
investigation.

Yours sincerely

Jolanda & Peter Challita