4 September 2009 - Submission to Anna Bligh, Premier, Queensland Government.
Anna Bligh, Premier,
Queensland Government.
Dear Mrs Bligh,
You have asked the Queensland people to give you their views on -
How can Queensland's integrity and accountability be improved and strengthened?
Mrs Bligh, I met you and Jim Varghese at the Cairns Community Conference on 23 june, 2002.
I told you that, when Queensland teachers were bullied at work, the immediate and only advice of the Queensland Teachers' Union ( QTU ) was to "accept the things you cannot change" because the Education Queensland Grievance process did not work and teachers who "fought it" suffered physical or mental breakdown.
My subsequent experience suggests to me that the advice of the QTU was correct.
And that nothing has changed since I spoke to you on 23 June 2002.
My recommendations to you are based on my experience of dealing with the Queensland Department of Education, the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Queensland Ombudsman.
Guidelines for decision makers.
2. Should the Queensland codes of conduct be strengthened in any way? If so, how should they be strengthened?
Queensland school principals seem to have no knowledge of the Education Queensland codes of conduct, or of Education Queensland policies, the Queensland Public Service Regulations, etc.
Education Queensland does not seem to have a literate culture.
It seems to have an oral culture - principals seem to "phone a friend" rather than read the official policies.
The Education Queensland codes of conduct would be "strengthened" if -
* Queensland teachers were required to sit a written exam on the codes of conduct before they were allowed to apply for promotion or for acting positions.
* And, having demonstrated their capacity to read and to understand the codes of conduct, school administrators were then expected to comply with the codes of conduct.
* There were serious consequences for administrators whose behaviour was in breach of the codes of conduct.
Because if there are no consequences, there are no codes.
The Queensland Department of Education has a responsibility to protect employees from workplace abuse.
* It should be clearly stated in the code of conduct that classroom teachers are professionals and have the right to conduct themselves as professionals.
* And that it is not acceptable professional conduct to punish a teacher for engaging in professional discussion.
so, for example, if a teacher expresses concern about the groups of unsupervised children who are roaming about the school, disrupting the other classes, it is not acceptable professional practice for the principal to respond by putting the teacher on Managing Unsatisfactory Performance.
* The Department of Education has a responsibility to protect classroom teachers from principals who maliciously "beat up" trivial incidents or imaginary "complaints" to justify putting teachers into the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance program.
* District Office staff need to be more active in protecting teachers from this sort of workplace abuse.
So, for example, if an "acting" principal contacts the District Office on her third day of "acting" and boasts that she is going to put a teacher on Managing Unsatisfactory Performance, alarm bells should ring out in that District Office. Steps should be taken immediately tp protect the classroom teachers at that school from workplace abuse. And the "acting" principal should be closely mentored and helped to understand and to comply with the Departmental policies.
The continual generation of "new" codes of conduct or official polices is not enough.
* Compliance with the codes of conduct should be measured.
* And it should be measured by an independent body.
So, for example, in July 2002 - less than one month after I spoke to Anna Bligh - the QTU reported that "more and more" QTU members were being bullied into ill health retirement.
Does this teacher abuse continue? This needs to be measured.
Managing Conflicts of Interest.
4. How could safeguards to ensure conflicts of Interest are appropriately managed be improved?
* It needs to be clearly stated in the code of conduct that Queensland public service administrators must not pressure subordinate officers to join their own branch of a political party.
I have disclosed, in my letter to Robert Needham dated 26 February 2009, the continuing conflict of interest on the grounds of political belief that seems to have affected / corrupted the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process and the Freedom of Information process in my own case.
* Any public service officer who writes any report / "Briefing For The Minister" / makes any decision concerning a teacher should be required to state at the end of the document that they understand the concept of "conflict of interest" and that they have no conflict of interest in taking this action.
* Members of promotion panels should be required to sign a statement that they understand the concept of "conflict of interest" and that they have no conflict of interest in making this promotion decision.
So, for example, when a new Queensland Information Commissioner is appointed, each member of the interview panel should be required to state that they have no conflict of interest in making this appointment.
* CMC / Education Queensland investigations should not be controlled / managed / supervised by the person whose behaviour is being investigated.
* The CMC should not "liaise" concerning an investigation with the person being investigated.
* That person's "advice" concerning the complainant or the investigation should not simply be copied down by the CMC officers into their official records.
Transparency
23 a. Is information about the decision-making processes of Government sufficiently available?
No, because -
Education Queensland, the CMC and the Queensland public service seem to operate as a fact-free zone.
They seem to operate as an oral culture.
Decisions concerning teachers seem to be based on malicious gossip and "feelings" that principals (and junior CMC officers) claim to be experiencing concerning the teachers.
So, for example, a principal who has not been into a teacher's classroom or looked at their program all year can suddenly claim to be experiencing "feelings" about that teacher that require the teacher to be put into the Managing Unsatisfactory Performance Program.
This is not the professional standard that I would have expected.
Education Queensland "official records" are of an appalling standard. When you ask for the documentation of the reasons for a decision, you are provided with a jumble of scribbles on sticky-notes and scraps of paper. It is very difficult to glean any meaning from these scribbled noted. But it is entirely up to you to try to figure out what is being alleged against you in these scribbles.
This appalling standard of documentation facilitates workplace abuse.
* All allegations concerning a teacher should be typed in sentences on a form which has a space for the teacher to respond to the allegations.
* Allegations should concern facts, not feelings that the principal claims to be experiencing.
* No allegation should be placed on a teacher's official record until after the teacher has had the opportunity to read the allegation and to respond to the allegation in writing.
* There should be consequences for principals who make secret collections of real and imaginary allegations concerning teachers.
* All teachers should be encouraged to examine, sign and date their official records at least once a year.
I have described in my letter dated 29 July to Robert Needham ( and all other attendees at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009 ) the letter to me from Helen Couper, Director, Complaints Services, CMC dated 4 january 2007, in which she advised me that -
"Departmental officers ... explained to you the reasons for the alteration of some of the records, in part arising from the paraphrasing of your words by departmental officers."
This is absolute gibberish.
I met Ken Smith and Peter Edwards. I recorded these meetings. Neither of these men said anything so ridiculous.
And no other "departmental officer" has ever attempted to fob me off with this sort of gibberish.
When I made an FOI request for the Departmental "record" from which Helen Couper had copied this gibberish, I was told that there was no documentation and that Helen Couper had little memory of what she had written.
But this gibberish is now on my official record.
And decisions concerning me have been based on this gibberish.
This is not the professional standard that i would have expected.
* All investigation reports, "Briefings For The Minister", letters, etc. prepared by public servants should have a bibliography, listing the documents used in preparing the final document.
Because when there is no bibliography -
* there is no transparency.
* there is no Freedom of Information.
* and decisions concerning Queensland teachers can be based on malicious gossip and absolute gibberish.
Prevention.
25. How could prevention measures be enhanced?
Queensland teachers who disclose child abuse by another teacher seem to be at great risk of "payback" allegations.
* Classroom teachers who disclose child abuse should be supported and protected for longer than one year.
* This protection should be organised at district level.
So-called "Natural Justice" - as practiced by Education Queensland and the Queensland public service seems to be being abused to teach students to lie, to reward poor behaviour and to facilitate systemic corruption.
So, for example, in one particular school, a teacher followed the School behaviour Management Policy.
She gave misbehaving students three warnings and then sent them to the principal.
The students were simply allowed to lie to the principal about their behaviour and about the teacher.
The students' lies were accepted, recorded and placed secretly on the teacher's "official records".
And this process of allowing poorly behaved students to lie about their own behaviour and about the teacher - and to escape the consequences of their poor behaviour - was being called "Natural Justice".
This "Natural Justice" rewards poor behaviour.
These students were being taught to lie.
The CMC / Education Queensland "investigation process" works in a similar manner -
This submission was received and published in full on the Premiers Department website :
