The organisation at the centre of the Carenne Gate affair, Carenne Support Limited changed its view on whether the transportation of a student to Lithgow return as a reward was a child protection issue or not when it raised the matter in the Industrial Relations Commission.
In a recount of the day in court, NSW Department of Education and Training Legal Officer Patrick Quinn stated that he told the commissioner:
After providing C. Cambridge with our side of events including the safety of students and the child protection issues surrounding the unauthorised transportation of a student...
This contrasts with information provided to Mick Eccleston in a telephone discussion between former Carenne Special School principal and Carenne Support Director, Terry Mahony. In his record, Mr Eccleston writes:
Mr Mahoney (sic) stated there were no child protection issues it was a staff conduct matter.
In a discussion with Peter Harvey and Mick Eccleston, Mr Harvey reiterated this view as represented in this record from Mr Eccleston:
[Mr Harvey] agreed that there were no child protection issues and that it was a matter of staff conduct.
If this is the case, why did Mr Mahony, represented by Mr Quinn go to the Industrial Relations Commission and claim that it was in fact a child protection issue?
There is also a dispute as to whether or not the transportation of a student was "unauthorised", the Carenne Saviours claim that the arrangement was implemented under Terry Mahony and Ros Luther's guidance as a reward for the student. It only became an issue when Mr Mahony was allegedly blackmailed by a number of staff in order to have Mr Carter's employment terminated.
Indymedia user jrosenberg claims that everyone at the school knew about it, meaning if it was a child protection issue why was it not reported?
No comments:
Post a Comment