TheBanyanTree: Worn Out

[PJMoney]

The problem has been going on for 18 months now and I'm worn out.  It has
two parts.  One part is the meaning of a particular phrase in a particular
piece of legislation.  The other part is the willingness of public servants
to respond to letters that have been sent to them; even if only to say that
the letter has been received.

It all began in early March 2004 when my eldest son, in a distraught state,
rang from Queensland to tell me that his application for Austudy assistance
to complete a teaching qualification had been knocked back.  The grounds
given were that he had already used up all his allowable study time at that
level.  I could not understand this because I couldn't see how the course he
was studying could be regarded as being at the same level as his previous
studies.  It was a course that required entrants to have a bachelor degree.
It was not open to people who had only graduated from high school.  

The legislation said that a "postgraduate bachelor degree" was level A
whereas an "undergraduate bachelor degree" was level B.  Time spent studying
a level B course had no effect on the allowable study time for people
enrolling to study a level A course.

The university said that the graduate Bachelor of Education involved studies
at undergraduate level.  In its handbook the university listed the Graduate
B Ed on the undergraduate pages.  Therefore, said the public servant
responsible for interpreting the legislation, the course was level B and my
son was not entitled to receive assistance.  

But what could be a "postgraduate bachelor degree"?  Could it be a degree
studied for at postgraduate level?  Hardly.  Why would anyone do studies at
postgraduate level only to be awarded a mere Bachelor's degree rather than a
Master's degree?  It had to mean undergraduate level studies in which only
graduates were allowed to enrol.  Or so it seemed to me.

So I wrote to the head honchos, the Federal Government Ministers responsible
for administering this piece of legislation.  Dear me.  Every response from
a relevant public servant takes 4 to 6 weeks.  So I waited.  And I waited.
And I waited.  And what I got back was either amorphous rubbish or just
plain rubbish.  I could tell you why they were rubbish but that would
probably bore you as much as it bores me.

Finally, in September 2004, I wrote to the big chief head honcho who might
be able to do something to sort the problem out, the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
He had the thing for 8 months.  Finally, in mid May 2005, I got a letter
back from him.  He said (surprise, surprise) that the meaning of the phrase
was a matter of interpretation and that it would have to be tested in a
court or tribunal.  In his letter he referred to a case, decided by the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which was only marginally relevant to our
problem.  However, when I googled it, I discovered that the Tribunal member
had referred to, and quoted from, a judgement which agreed with the argument
we'd been putting the whole time.  So I looked up the referenced case.  Then
I searched the whole AAT archive and found another case that was precisely
relevant and that had been determined in November 2000!  The search took me
an hour and a half whereas all the fruitless efforts of highly paid public
servants had taken well over a year.

In the case I found the counsel for the department involved had submitted
that a level A course is a bachelor degree that requires entrants to have a
bachelor's degree.  The Tribunal had accepted the submission.  So I wrote to
the Ombudsman to let him know that the matter had been tested 4 years before
my son applied for assistance.  That was two months ago.  I have heard
nothing since.

How long should it take for an employee of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's
office to write back to a complainant and let them know that their letter
has been received?  I'm past knowing.  In my heart I think two months is too
long but I'm so used to waiting for longer that two months seems quite a
short time to me.  But I've been to the office of my local Senator and the
woman at the reception desk says two months is too long.  

I've left it with the Senator.  On Monday I'm going on holiday for the first
time in nearly three years.  My husband and I are taking one of those big
Winnebago type things across to Broome.  At Kununurra we're going on an all
day cruise of the Ord River and Lake Argyle.  At Halls Creek we're taking a
plane trip over the Wolfe Creek Meteor Crater and the Bungle Bungles.  When
we get to Broome we're going to stay at the Cable Beach Resort and spend
some time walking down to look at the fossilised dinosaur footprints.  

When we get back I'll check in with the Senator and if he's got nothing good
to say to me I'm going to get a solicitor and I'm going to sue the
Commonwealth Government.  I figure 7 million is a good ambit claim, plus an
abject apology from whoever is in charge of running the Commonwealth Public
Service.  Cornelia Rau is going for 7 million.  She was only in detention
for 10 months and that was partly her own fault for being mad (though,
having read the Palmer Report, she strikes me as having been mad rather like
the Prince of Denmark, one Hamlet, was mad).  We've been struggling on for
18 months and have given all possible assistance, as far as my lack of legal
training will allow, to those required to determine the decision in my son's
case.  Therefore I feel that we've done as much as, and indeed more than,
any ordinary citizen could reasonably be asked to do.  If we don't ask for
an outrageous level of compensation what notice will be taken of our
complaint?

So we'll see.  Maybe in a few more months your correspondent will be a
wealthier person as far as monetary riches go.  Or maybe not.

Janice