1

CHALLITA ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE SELECTIVE SCHOOLS UNIT AND THE DET
On Christmas Eve 2003 we received documents under FOI that showed alarming instances of
discrimina�on, vic�misa�on, bias, manipula�on and tampering of test results and outcomes, corrup�on,
misconduct, malfeasance, and a conspiracy to cover up. The allega�ons involved children.

The documents below deal with the process that was used in order to cover up our allega�ons and close
the mater, to a point where fresh allega�ons that were made in the years to come, involving different
children, were also filed away.

On 24 June I wrote to the Minister Mr Refshauge seeking an inves�ga�on.

4 August 2004: Mr Refshauge indicated that my allega�ons would be inves�gated as per the
Responding to Sugges�on and Complaints policy – image 1.
 2

Image 1:

We made formal complaints to the Ombudsman who did not inves�gate. We received from the
Ombudsman an undated unsigned copy of a leter from the Minister Mr Refshauge with the same
reference number RML03/5996 that our leter had advising of an inves�ga�on but a different body of
leter. The Ombudsman, when presented with our copy and the DET copy, chose to accept the Depts
 3

copy (undated, not on leter head and unsigned) as the legi�mate copy of the leter instead of the one
we presented on leter head, signed, and dated – image 2. Our copy said an inves�ga�on would be
commenced. The copy the DET sent him said the inves�ga�on had been completed and that the
Ombudsman had inves�gated the mater.

UNDATED – IMAGE 2

I requested evidence of the inves�ga�on from the Ombudsman and received this?
 4

I did have a phone call with Bob Wingrave in rela�on to the mee�ng. I advised him that I wanted a
Solicitor to be present a�er what transpired at the viewing of the tests with my children where we were
in�midated, bullied, and harassed un�l my children le� in tears. Bob Wingrave told me that he would
have a mee�ng with me only and that it didn’t mater whether I found his explana�ons reasonable or
even acceptable that the mater would be closed, and correspondence filed without acknowledgment.
As a result of this I refused to have this mee�ng.

15 August 2003 – I wrote to Child protec�on trying to get protec�on for my children.
 5

16 October 2003 - Leter from Judy Hopewood. I have been unable to locate original leter right at this
minute. I have a mountain of paper work but trust me it exists.

Her letter stated the following:

That she is writing on behalf of Mr John Brogden who has asked her to reply to my concerns
regarding the DET's assessment of my children for Selective Schooling,

That Mr Brogden has noted that we have already made representations to the Minister for
Education regarding this issue. However, he asks that I thank you for taking the time to write to
us. Your comments are noted and greatly appreciated.

That she is making further representations on your behalf to the Minster for Education and
training, following the information you received from the Department under Freedom of
information.

BELOW IS THE RML03/10994 WHICH HAS BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN WHEN THE MATTER WAS
CLOSED BY THE MINISTER. IT IS IN RELATION TO REPRESENTATIONS MR BROGDEN MADE ON
MY BEHALF TO THE DET.
6
 7

.
Based on RML03/10994 responding to Mr Brogdens representa�ons on my behalf, despite no
inves�ga�on having taken place, we were placed on a list where no acknowledgement/responses should
be sent regarding anything to do with Selec�ve Schooling for my children.
 8

When I wrote to Mr Refshauge I cc’d the Premier Mr Bob Carr. I received this response.
 9

4 March 2004. Magda Pollack one of the main persons we allege was vic�mizing and discrimina�ng
against our children sends a fax sta�ng that I have been classified a vexa�ous correspondent and been
advised that further correspondence will be filed without response.

11 March 2004: I had not received a response from Mr Brogden so I contacted his office and I received a
copy of the response from Mr Refshauge to Mr Brogden dated 19 December 2003 by facsimile.
10
 11

At no point had I been informed the mater was closed. I was wai�ng to hear from Chris Caroll in rela�on
to the commencement of the inves�ga�on. I was making enquiries and ge�ng nowhere.

I believed that my leters were not ge�ng to their des�na�on with the documents as I sent them or at
all.
 12

18 March 2004
 13

26 March 2004
 14

9 June 2004 - File note from John Murn confirming that the line or repor�ng is through Carol Carrigan.

19 July 2004: Leter to John Murn as it became apparent that they were trying to include the allega�ons
into the FOI mates to not inves�gate the serious allega�ons that we were making.
 15

We made fresh allega�ons in rela�on to my daughters Ella test results as FOI documents showed bias in
marking and my sons Year 8 Selec�ve High School applica�ons. There was a conflict of du�es as those
involved had serious allega�ons made against them that should have been disclosed.
16
 17

19 August 2004: Leter from Bill Middleton Audit Directorate sta�ng that no inves�ga�on would take
place.
18
19
20
21
 22

14 September 2004: I believed that mail had been intercepted and not arriving to their des�na�on as I
sent them as I believed that there was no way that the decisions would be made that were made if the
documenta�on was arriving in tact.
 23

September 2004: A fax was sent by Solicitors that we had engaged to assist us.
 24

28 September 2004
 25

The Execu�ve support director ac�on sheet above states that the maters were deemed closed by
RML04/3037 and RML04/2950 – see below. This reference is noted in the leter from the Minister Mr
Refshauge to Mr M Kerr.
 26

April 2005

I wrote to Carmel Tebbut as my younger daughter was now being targeted.

27
 28

25 February 2005 – Submission to the Minister RML05/637

 29

25 February 2005 –
 30

18 March 2005: I received a leter from Carmell Tebut reference No. RML05/637 (same as submission
above) once again sta�ng that no response. New instances of discrimina�on and allega�ons were being
made but they were being put under the same umbrella and children were not protected and permited
to be vic�mized, marked down, put down, humiliated for the dura�on of their educa�on. This impacted
4 children from the year 2000 to 2015 when my youngest finished school and they were targeted right
up un�l their HSC results.
31
32