Skip to main content

Ombudsman green lights NPWS misinformation and misrepresentations

Way, way back on 19 July 2021 I submitted a complaint about NPWS management of the Mount Warning National Park to the NSW Ombudsman. To cut a long story short the Ombudsman's office replied on 14 October 2021 declining to investigate. On October 15, 2021 I requested this decision be reviewed. After more than 12 months I received the outcome of this review on November 8, 2022 (content below). After more than a year the Ombudsman has upheld the earlier decision and has declined to investigate my concerns. The muck to be left under the rug. 

The saga raises serious concerns about the capacity the gatekeepers of our democracy have to investigate maladministration in public office. Based on my experience we have a bunch of toothless tigers too scared and frightened of upsetting the cart to do the work the public rely upon to ensure our bureaucracy is acting in accordance with the laws that govern them. It is clear this process is broken. The only avenue available now appears to be recourse to independent legal action. If anyone has a spare million or so to take this further please give me a call!

The full story below...  

My complaint to the Ombudsman sent 20 July 2021 alleged the following:

NPWS in mismanaging the Wollumbin (Mt Warning) National Park have:

  • Committed serious maladministration in failing to correct misinformation provided to the Minister and public about safety in the park.
  • Committed serious maladministration by failing to provide the Minister and public with a full appreciation of Aboriginal views about public access in the park.
  • Failed to properly consult with stakeholders about NPWS true intentions.
  • Failed to deal properly with complaints
Evidence of the above was provided to the Ombudsman's office (see below).

On October 14, 2021 I received a reply from the Ombudsman's office from, well let's not embarass the poor dears, let's call him "Peter". "Peter" indicated they would NOT investigate these allegations further.  

"While I appreciate that the responses you have received from the Minister for Energy and Environment have not specifically referred to your claims about the conflicting views and risk assessments concerning access to the Park, I am unable to see any clear evidence of serious maladministration by the agency that could justify our office’s further action."

"While I understand your disagreement with the assessed risks and previous consultation process, I am unable to consider that there is any further action our office can take in the circumstances. As such, I have closed this matter at our office."

Given the weight of the evidence presented I was somewhat surprised with this response and made the following inquiry:

Sent 15/10/2021
Dear "Peter",
Thank you for your response.

I am interested in the work you and the Ombudsman have completed in coming up with your determination. It appears the complaint has not been seriously considered and I am concerned the Ombudsman' office has misunderstood the substance of the complaint and the seriousness of the issues raised. Can you please provide an outline of how you arrived at your decision? 
For instance:
Did you do any background research on the history of the park and the summit walk?
Did you contact relevant officials in NPWS?
Did you attempt to contact relevant indigenous groups?
Did you seek an independent assessment of alleged safety risks posed by the summit walk?
How much time was spent on this complaint? 

At this stage the superficial nature of the response is disappointing to say the least.

Regards
Marc Hendrickx

This was responded to thus:

Received 15/10/2021

Dear Marc

 

The Ombudsman Act 1974 provides the Ombudsman with wide discretion on whether to investigate a particular complaint based on various factors including the nature of the complaint and the availability of alternative avenues to pursue the complaint.

 

As explained, our office has no power to stop the agency or Minister from closing Wollumbin National Park. We cannot advocate for the competing views about the Park’s alleged risks and consultation process.

 

As we cannot provide you with the outcomes you seek, I am sorry there is no further action we can take. As suggested, you may wish to seek independent advice on the options available to you if the closure of the Park has caused any particular impact.


Regards

"Peter"



I remained troubled that my complaint had been given such superficial assessment and requested a review by a more senior officer:

Sent 15/10/2021
Dear Sir/Madam,

Following a phone conversation with "Peter" in relation to his determination not to investigate my complaint about serious maladministration in NPWS management of Mt Warning I wish to request a formal review by a more experienced officer. 

The grounds for this are as follows:

In his letter to me outlining his reasons for not further investigating my complaint "Peter" misrepresents my complaint as being about "dissatisfaction with the responses you received from the agency, via the responsible Minister". It appears this misunderstanding has biased and impacted  "Peter's"  consideration of the very specific issues raised in my complaint. They lead me to wonder if the complaint was properly considered. I appreciate there is time pressure on the agency at this time, but this is not grounds to dismiss a complaint so lightly with a response that does not address each of the substantive points raised. The issues of my complaint deal with NPWS processes and administration in relation to their governing Act and are within the scope of the Ombudsman's remit. 

The mischaracterisation of my complaint as being about the Minister's response, does not address the substance of my complaint which is about the agency's actions and indicates to me that  "Peter" does not understand the issues raised and perhaps has not properly read through the complaint document and evidence provided. I got the feeling this was the case as "Peter" acknowledged in our conversation that the matters were serious and dealt mainly with agency actions and not the response from the Minister. 

My complaint was about and provided evidence for the following against NPWS:
  • Committed serious maladministration in failing to correct misinformation provided to the Minister and public about safety in the park.
  • Committed serious maladministration by failing to provide the Minister and public with a full appreciation of Aboriginal views about public access in the park.
  • Failed to properly consult with stakeholders about NPWS true intentions.
  • Failed to deal properly with complaints
In his reply to me and in our phone conversation "Peter"  did not provide reasons the evidence I presented was insufficient for further action to be taken by the ombudsman on each of these points. 

"Peter" has mischaracterised and misunderstood my complaint about being about the response from the Minister. It is clearly about the actions and administrative conduct of the agency (NPWS) who have misled the Minister and the Public and hence the complaint fully falls under the investigation remit of the Ombudsman. 

I am requesting that a formal review be conducted and if the decision is not to further investigate these serious matters then for the reviewing officer to clearly outline why the evidence on each of the points above does not deserve a formal investigation. If the officer decides an investigation is warranted I am happy to provide further information. 

Regards
Marc Hendrickx

On November 3 2021 I was contacted by, well let's just call him Sam. Sam wrote to tell me the office would review the earlier decision. Subsequent emails and phone converations with Sam suggested he was going to do a thorough job. However in the end it seems no one wanted to rock the boat I was sent the letter below on November 8, 2022 over 12 months after the review was instigated - no investigation would be forth coming, just lift the carpet and push the muck underneath.











My original complaint July 19, 2021:

RE: Mismanagement of Wollumbin (Mt Warning) National Park by NPWS

Dear Sir/Madam,

The role of the NSW Ombudsman is to safeguard the community in their dealings with government and non-government agencies where there are:

•             systemic (structural or procedural) deficiencies in public administration

•             individual cases of serious abuse of powers

•             significant public interest issues

•             an agency fails to properly deal with complaints

•             issues which, if investigated, are likely to lead to recommendations resulting in significant changes or amendments to law or policies

•             significant cross-jurisdictional issues (ie. issues involving or concerning the conduct or policies of two or more agencies or their staff)

•             sensitive issues which are unlikely to be (or be seen to be) properly addressed by the agencies concerned (due to such factors as the seniority of the staff the subject of the allegations, conflicts of interest on the part of the agency or its senior staff, significant sensitivity, etc), or

•             serious maladministration or detrimental action as defined in the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994

The complaint I am raising in this letter against the National Parks and Wildlife Service about their long term mismanagement of the Wollumbin (Mt Warning) National Park in northern NSW includes the above criteria. NPWS in mismanaging the Wollumbin (Mt Warning) National Park have:

·         Committed serious maladministration in failing to correct misinformation provided to the Minister and public about safety in the park.

·         Committed serious maladministration by failing to provide the Minister and public with ah full appreciation of Aboriginal views about public access in the park.

·         Failed to properly consult with stakeholders about NPWS true intentions.

·         Failed to deal properly with complaints

Details of the above points are provided below. I request the Ombudsman investigate these sensitive matters that are of considerable Public interest and have significant cross-jurisdictional issues.

NPWS have committed serious maladministration in failing to correct misinformation provided to the Minister and public about safety in the park.

 

• Public information released about the safety issues on the Mountain by NPWS has a critical error. NPWS have claimed there are "extreme" and "catastrophic" risks on the mountain from landslides and other hazards but documents obtained through GIPA show these are in error and these hazards are assigned a "medium" risk in NPWS own safety assessment (see “Wollumbin risk assessment 2019- final” attached) . For the hazards listed the risk is similar to other Grade 4-5 bushwalks in the state that are currently open, this is based on hazards with a “rare” likelihood but extreme consequence.

• The medium risk assigned for landslides and rock falls by NPWS conflicts with a slope stability assessment completed by geotechnical experts in 2018 (GHD) that found risks to visitors from possible landslides and rockfalls in the park are very low, effectively lower than traveling anywhere by train in Australia.(See GHD risk assessment report attached -3 - GHD Wollumbin Slope Stability Assessment 2018).

• NPWS relied on an engineering report about the post and chain system to close access to the summit (see attachment Tab 4 Engineering Assessment of Chain Section 2020), however this report was not independently checked by another engineer in line with industry practice. A review by me (Engineering geologist) revealed deficiencies made about key assumptions used to make the risk assessment. When these are taken into account the risk assessment is found to be in error. In correspondence (attached - Mt Warning chain assessment correspondence M Hendrickx P Wallace) with me the engineer acknowledged these issues and admitted “I agree with your observations about level of potential injury and also the probability comments which also have not been rigorously reviewed.”

 • NPWS secretly removed the chain and post system in August 2020. In my correspondence with NPWS officers in December 2020 at no point did the officer inform me that the chain had been removed (Jenny.Atkins@environment.nsw.gov.au). I found this myself when I conducted an independent inspection of the chain and posts in January 2021. My inspection of removed posts and chains did not find signs of excessive corrosion and the system was found to be in satisfactory working condition and need not have been removed. The NPWS officer lied to me.

• Following my inspection I wrote an independent report about safety issues on the summit walk and sent it the Minister (attached). At no point did the Minister or department acknowledge receipt of the report or respond to issues raised in that report. 

• The chain and post system was installed in the 1970s. Prior to this there was no chain on the upper rock scramble to the summit. It is worth noting that when the park was officially opened in 1929, the opening ceremony was attended by over 200 people including a large contingent of school children. It is clear that NPWS have exaggerated the safety risks of the climb for their own purposes.

• The ombudsman should be aware I am an engineering geologist with almost 30 years professional experience. I have provided expert opinion for NPWS on previous occasions and currently work closely with Transport for NSW and other government agencies and private organisations on Landslide and rock fall risk assessment and management.

Summary:

 NPWS have mislead the Minister and Public and safety risks in the park and they continue to do so. This amounts to serious maladministration.

The Ombudsman should consider an independent assessment be made on the safety risks of the Mt Warning summit walk and compare these to other similar walks in the state.

NPWS have committed serious maladministration by failing to provide the Minister and public with a full appreciation of Aboriginal views about public access in the park.

For over 20 years consultations NPWS have had with Aboriginal groups have not included or considered and paid respect to the diverse range of indigenous opinions about Mt Warning, some of which encourage climbing. NPWS have an obligation under the National Parks Act to take the views of Traditional owners into account. They have failed to do so for many years. The area of Mt Warning is the traditional area of the Ngarakwal/Nganduwal peoples -  not the Bundjalung who are a merger of various other northern NSW groups. In its deliberations, documents obtained through GIPA reveal NPWS have included groups from interstate with no legitimate claim on the mountain. In an interview in 2007 before she died Ngaraakwal elder and Mount Warning custodian Marlene Boyd. Stated "I do not oppose the public climbing of Mt Warning - how can the public experience the spiritual significance of this land if they do not climb the summit and witness creation!" What a wonderful inspirational message this is. It is such a joyous affirmation of the awe and wonder we all experience when we connect with nature and the natural world, and it is outrageous and insulting that her views have been completely ignored by NPWS. It is misleading to the Minister and the Public that NPWS do not refer to these views in Public pronouncement about Aboriginal views about the public climbing Mt Warning.

In recent public surveys commissioned by NPWS participants have not been provided with the views of Marlene Boyd (refer attached journal article Comment on To climb or not to climb) or her mother Mt Warning Custodian Millie Boyd, instead providing the views only of the Bundjalung Nation. The complex mythology about Mt Warning as revealed by the late Millie Boyd to NPWS researcher Howard Creamer through interviews commissioned by NPWS in the 1970s have  been omitted from Management Plans of the Park (listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdXD3TyVJf0). The Minister and public deserve to be told about these views.

The opinions of other past traditional owners also deserve to be drawn to the Minister’s and Public’s attention. On January 4 2000 Wijabul elder Fletcher Roberts (now deceased) released the following press statement:

 

The statement reads:

PRESS RELEASE

Cultural boundaries, responsibilities have been ignored in Mt Warning issue, Elder says.

Wijabul elder Fletcher Roberts has criticised moves by a section of the Aboriginal community to claim that Mt Warning is a sacred site and to prevent people from climbing the mountain.

"They have had walking tracks up the mountain for decades, but no one has tried to stop people from climbing it before," Mr Roberts said.

"This claim is a modern day invention.

"This claim is being perpetuated by someone who is overstepping his cultural responsibilities and he will have to face the consequences of Aboriginal lore for what he is doing.

"Claims are being made that this knowledge came from the very elder who raised me and gave me my own knowledge but he never told me not to go to Mt Warning.

"The people who are stepping into this from outside these boundaries will have to face the cultural consequences.

"They should remember the boundaries of their own clan area and the cultural lore.

"These people should be mindful of the destruction they are causing to true Aboriginal culture.

"The white community needs to wise up to the Aboriginal sectors that try to use their lack of understanding of Aboriginal culture for their own purposes.

"The white community needs to make sure it identifies the true elders of an area.

"They should realise that elders' responsibilities apply to their own tribal areas and they have no jurisdiction over another area.

"It is not unusual for clans to have disputes over boundaries and this still happens today as it did in the past... but for people from Mullabugilmah (near Grafton) to claim that they have some jurisdiction over Mt Warning id too far a stretch of the imagination.

"If they still believe in the culture they should stick to their own areas.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE signed F Roberts January 4, 2000.

In regard to Bundjalung Claims of ownership over the mountain Githabel elder Harry Boyd has made numerous submissions to Tweed Council challenging Bundjalung claims on Mt Warning. For instance this  extract from: Unsettling Anthropology: The Demands of Native Title on Worn Concepts and Changing Lives/ edited by Toni Bauman and Gaynor MacDonald. ISBN: 9780987135339 (pbk.) P29-30

Another example is disagreement concerning use of the collective regional label ‘Bundjalung’ in north coastal New South Wales. Harry Boyd, who identifies as a Ngarakwal/Githabul elder, has argued in letters to the Federal Minister for the Environment and to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya that the ‘False Bundjalung Nation’ ‘eliminated’ the distinct peoples of the region (Boyd 2009). He suggests that the term ‘Bundjalung’ was ‘created from’ linguistic texts and the work of local historians. With recognition of the Bundjalung people in heritage studies and by local councils, he argues: ‘We (Ngarakwal / Githabul) and the other distinct peoples of the Northern New South Wales, South East Queensland region are being subject to forced assimilation as Bundjalung’ (Boyd 2009).

Disputes over the Bundjalung label, and difficulties in choosing acceptable alternatives, have held up the erection of local council signage and other proposals for recognising Aboriginal people in the Tweed Heads area in particular (Caton 2009; Sapwell 2009).

Another dispute in this region concerns use of the name ‘Arakwal’, a term associated with native title claims and several agreements in the Byron Bay area, including one resulting in the creation of the Arakwal National Park in 2001. In the wake of these agreements the name ‘Arakwal’ has become more or less fixed, in both popular and official use for the area. The valid usage of ‘Arakwal’ has, however, been a point of contention. Members of the Boyd family objected to ‘Arakwal’ as a ‘misuse’ of the name ‘Ngaragbal’ (or Ngarak(g)wal), which they associate with their own family (Byron Shire Echo 2003, 6). The  Arakwal native title claim was also at times partially overlapped by the Ngyabul People claim and the Gnargbaul Clan claim (Neate 2002, 136), and there have been several other differently identifying indigenous respondents involved (see also discussion in Hansard, Joint Committee 2003 at Byron Bay; and Stewart2008, 365). One objection to the Byron Bay claim received publicity in 2007 (Lyons 2007, 5). It was reported that ‘the challengers claim that they are the real Arakwal’. The Byron Bay claimants, a spokesperson said, were ‘attempting a corporate takeover of the Arakwal name’ (Lyons 2007, 5). Although the Byron Bay claim group had by then adopted the relatively neutral term, ‘Bundjalung People of Byron Bay’ (Bundjalung of Byron Bay 2009, 16), the name Arakwal was and is still in use and remains contentious. Also, as noted above, ‘Bundjalung’ is not universally accepted as a regional collective label.

None of this information critical to understanding Aboriginal cultural history of the mountain  has been provided to the Minister or public nor included in Park Management plans as required under the ACT.

Summary:

For 20 years NPWS have mislead the Minister and Public about the diversity of Aboriginal mythology and opinion about the public climbing Mt Warning.

NPWS have for many years deliberately ignored any alternate indigenous claims. This represents a systemic (structural or procedural) deficiency in public administration and raises questions of a serious abuse of powers.

NPWS is in breach of section 30k 2(a) of their managing ACT:  National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 No 80 Section 30K:

(2)  An Aboriginal area is to be managed in accordance with the following principles—

(a)  the conservation of natural values, buildings, places, objects, features and landscapes of cultural value to Aboriginal people in accordance with the cultural values of the Aboriginal people to whose heritage the buildings, places, objects, features or landscapes belong,

NPWS are not managing the park in accordance with the with the cultural values of the Aboriginal people to whose heritage the buildings, places, objects, features or landscapes belong”

I recommend the ombudsman insist NPWS include the views of Marlene Boyd, Millie Boyd, Fletcher Roberts and Harry Boyd in management plans for the park and give them equal weight to views of the group it currently consults with. It is cultural vandalism on the part of NPWS to omit the rich cultural history revealed by Millie Boyd from the Minister and deny it the Public’s attention and appreciation.

Failed to properly consult with stakeholders about NPWS true intentions.

NPWS have not provided a mechanism or consulted with the business groups and individuals over compensation for losses incurred over many years due to NPWS active "demarketing" of the park that has reduced visitation. It has not provided a means for businesses to gain compensation for losses due to NPWS planned permanent closure of the Park that was revealed in documents released through GIPA.

These documents reveal a "Final Wollumbin Closure Event" is planned by NPWS for 25 November 2022 (see attachment – Attachment 4 Wollumbin Closure Strategy - Implementation Plan). Documents show NPWS have NO intention of re-opening the park to the public before that time. It’s clear the permanent closure has been planned for many years, despite NPWS indicating a review will be undertaken in May 2021. NPWS have been concealing their plans to permanently close the park for many years and have lied to local land holders, the public and misinformed the Minister.

Summary:

NPWS deceptive behaviour in hiding their plans to permanently close the park from the Public and Minister represent serious maladministration as defined in the Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994.  The damage done to local businesses who have made plans on the basis of continued park visitation are immense and have not been considered by NPWS. Not one of the businesses I have spoken with have been consulted on this by NPWS.

The ombudsman must put an injunction on NPWS further mismanagement of the park and move to recommend management of the park be transferred to an independent board. Compensation should eb offered to local businesses impacted by NPWS secret “demarketing “campaign based on lies that has impacted visitor numbers.

Failed to deal properly with complaints

I sent a formal complaint to the Premier, Minister and Department officers on 18 February 2021. This was ignored by the Premier, Minister and Department officers and it was only after involvement of the Ombudsman office (complaint reference C/2021/5953) that the Department and Minister was forced into providing a response. This is attached.

Despite having my complaint for almost 5 months the response is brief and unsatisfactory. It does not deal with the substance on my complaint on any of the issues raised.

Summary: NPWS and the Minister have Failed to deal properly with complaints. NPWS need ot address each of the issues raised in a serious and considered manner.  Officers I named in an ICAC complaint have been involved in the reply and have a strong conflict of interest in continuing their involvement in relying to me and further management of the park.

ACTIONS

In my view NPWS mismanagement of the park for 20 years is so severe the following actions are warranted to restore proper management of the park.

1. NPWS have misled the public and the Minister about safety and the true nature of indigenous opinions in the Park, and have actively “demarketed” the park for many years. The Government must strip NPWS of management of the park and appoint an independent management board to restore common sense and balance to looking after this outstanding natural resource that belongs to all of us. We all have the right to use the walking track built by volunteers in 1909 to access those remarkable summit views.

2. Immediately withdraw erroneous safety information and provide a corrected safety assessment that shows the summit track is no less safe than any other grade 4-5 walks in the state that are currently open.

3. Inform the public that the views of traditional owners of Mt Warning have been ignored in providing visitors with information about Indigenous views about the park, and ensure they are included in any further deliberations about the Park's Management.

4. Withdraw the results of a visitation survey that did not include the views of Ngaraakwal elder and Mount Warning custodian Marlene Boyd and other elders supportive of public climbing to the summit.

5. Fix a sign in honour of Ngaraakwal elder and Mount Warning custodians Marlene Boyd and Millie Boyd to the summit of the Mountain inscribed with Marlene Boyd’s inspirational message:  "I do not oppose the public climbing of Mt Warning - how can the public experience the spiritual significance of this land if they do not climb the summit and witness creation!"

6. Provide compensation to businesses affected by NPWS long-term "demarketing" campaign and its planned permanent closure of Wollumbin National Park should the permanent closure go ahead.

7. As soon as practicable, reopen the park and summit track to the public.

8. Provide a new management plan that provides for proper maintenance of park infrastructure respectful of the many volunteers who have contributed to the construction and maintenance of the summit track over many decades, including replacement of the chain leading to the summit and care and maintenance of summit lookouts. This must include the full range of Aboriginal views about the summit walk, including those that permit climbing.

9. In regard to Management plans for Aboriginal places "Bushwalking" and "rock climbing" to be removed as harmful activities from all Aboriginal Place management plans currently in use or planned for other Aboriginal Places in NSW. Inclusion of these innocuous activities threatens public access to many other places of wonder in New South Wales.

10. NPWS to provide a formal apology to the people of NSW for breaching the public's trust and misleading the Government.

Yours Faithfully

Marc Hendrickx








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mount Warning: Aboriginal claims about summit climb are contested

"How can the public experience the spiritual significance of this land if they do not climb the summit and witness creation."   Ngaraakwal Elder Marlene Boyd RIP   NSW NPWS have the following description about Aboriginal attitudes to people climbing to the summit of Mt Warning on their webpage about the walking track: Wollumbin, which means ‘cloud catcher’ to some Aboriginal People, is a traditional place of cultural law, initiation and spiritual education for the people of the Bundjalung Nation. Under Bundjalung law, only certain people can climb the summit. Out of respect for their law and culture, consider not climbing the summit. These claims, including the very name applied to the mountain, are contested and it seems there is another story that NSW NPWS have not properly acknowledged and have long kept from public attention.  We came across this article from the Daily News February 24 2007 about Ngaraakwal Elder Marlene Boyd that makes for interesting reading. It seems

Mt Warning - Summit signing, time capsule

A Mt Warning Visit, summit signing Drove up the long road from Sydney, leaving early to grab a beer at the Mt Warning Hotel at Uki in the afternoon. There's a nice view of the summit from the smoker's deck. The tip of the mountain was catching clouds and then letting them go. I met Roger, a one-legged ex- navy seal and former security guard to Gloria Estafan. He was an interesting bloke, sucking a large Cuban cigar and slamming spiced rum on ice. He had one eye, apparently, he had lost the other blue pearl in a firefight with Somali terrorists in the Persian Gulf. We had a brief discussion of current affairs and the insanity of public parks being closed for no good reason, and vandalism of the tourism industry by a woke broken Bureaucracy - just light conversation. I mentioned I had a mission that might suit him and he agreed to join in. We headed to the Mt Warning Rainforest Caravan Park. Mt Warning from the Mt Warning Hotel Roads around the area are still not repaired from la

17th death on the Rock

17th death on the Rock ABC report that a 76 year old Japanese man collapsed on the steep part of the climb and despite first aid, was not able to be revived. The elderly Japanese man likely died as a result of heart complications, probably brought on by existing (perhaps unknown) medical conditions and over exerting himself. He appears to have died revelling in the opportunity life provides. RIP Brother of the Rock.  Our thoughts with his family and the first attenders who did their best to treat him. It's sad, but life goes on, and so should the climb. His death marks the 17th death ON the Rock since 26 May 1962 when 16 year old school boy Brian Strieff, on a school excursion with Carey Grammar, wondered off the main path in heavy fog on the way down and fell to his death. ABC's report indicate it is the 37th death, but these figures from Parks Australia have not been substantiated. It seems that many of the deaths Parks Australia claim to have occurred ON the Rock occurr