Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference, 2009.

29 July, 2009

 

Robert Needham, Chairperson, Crime and Misconduct Commission of Queensland

 

The Honourable Jerrold Cripps, Independent Commission Against Corruption of New South Wales

 

The Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RDF, QC, Commissioner, Corruption and Crime Commission of Western Australia

 

And all attendees at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

I am a whistleblower.

 

I am one of your clients.

 

In Dangerous Liaisons Robert Needham reminded us of the words of Aldous Huxley - "the means employed determine the nature of the ends produced".

 

If  I were invited to speak to the conference, this is what I would tell you about the "ends produced" by a CMC / Education Queensland investigation -

 

 

I am one of the 98% of people who have made a complaint to the Queensland CMC and had it handed back to the public service "agency" concerned.

 

On 23 June 2002 I met Anna Bligh and Jim Varghese. I told them that, when Queensland teachers were bullied at work, the only advice of the Queensland Teachers' Union was to "accept the things you cannot change", because the Education Queensland Grievance system did not work. I believe that my experience since June 2002 has demonstrated the truth of that first disclosure.

 

On 26 February 2003 and again on 29 June 2003, I disclosed to Peter Beattie that certain political relationships seemed to be affecting the investigation of my Grievance.

 

(I detailed this continuing political situation in my disclosure to Robert Neeedham dated 26 February, 2009.)

 

On 26 March 2004 I received a few Freedom of Information documents and I immediately reported to Education Queensland FOI officers that some of my official records had been falsified.

 

On 12 April 2004 I complained to the CMC that my Education Queensland "official records" seemed to have been extensively falsified.

 

 

The Education Queensland "Final Outcome Advice" to the CMC concerning my complaint is dated 15 February 2008.

 

It is signed by David Garland, Principal Advisor, Investigations and Complaints, Ethical Standards, Education Queensland.

 

I have never spoken to Mr Garland or had any communication with him at all.

 

This "Final Outcome Advice" seems to have been simply accepted and filed by the CMC.

 

It is a substantially falsified record.

 

Which suggests that the"ends produced" by the Education Queensland / CMC investigation process are the continuing falsification of my official records.

 

The Final Outcome Advice reads:

 

Reference Number CMC MI-03-0035 & MI-04-1824

 

How dealt with - External investigation.

 

FALSIFIED

 

MI-03-0035  was "internally reviewed" by an Aboriginal employee of Education Queensland - a project officer with no qualifications in education, law or psychology.

 

He worked under the direction of the senior officer whose behaviour I had complained about.

 

He based his "internal review" on a mass of falsified "records" that had been placed secretly on my Stage 1 Grievance file to create the false impression that these falsified "records" had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance Investigation process.

 

The internal reviewer decided / was directed not to "consider" my responses to these falsified "records".

 

And the internal reviewer does not seem to have "considered" my 26 November 2003 full disclosure to the CMC, although the CMC seem to have provided Education Queensland with several copies of this disclosure.

 

 

" Findings for each CMC MAR allegation.

 

Partially substantialted. ... All other allegations remain unsubstantiated."

 

FALSIFIED

 

The second MI-04-1824 investigation was conducted by a Verifact investigator, but every stage of the investigation was tightly controlled by officers of the Education Queensland Ethical Conduct Unit.

 

The Verifact investigator was only allowed to "discover" that a huge mass of records had been placed on my file without my knowledge.

 

Then the investigation was stopped.

 

The Verifact investigator was not allowed to investigate the actual falsification of these "records".

 

And the various conflicts of interest on political grounds that seemed to have affected the handling of my disclosures.

 

So it would be more accurate to say that "all other allegations remain uninvestigated".

 

 

"  ...Letter to the Regional Executive Director and that the RO (name of acting principal) received advice about a breach of the COC in relation to the falsification of records. .. "

 

FALSIFIED

 

On 23 August 2006 Regan Nuemann, Director, Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, Education Queensland, wrote to the Regional Executive Director concerned.

 

The letter seems to have actually been written by Peter Edwards, Assistant Director, Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, Education Queensland.

 

" ... I have determined that the ... investigation's recommendations are appropriately addressed by taking steps to remind all personnel in the region of their responsibilities with the use and management of adverse departmental records."

 

But my complaint was that these "adverse departmental records" were not only concealed from me, they had been extensively falsified. Many seem to be "records" of entirely imaginary conversations.

And that a mass of these falsified "records" had been placed on the record of the Stage 1 Grievance investigation, to create the false impression that they had been discussed with me during the  Grievance investigation process.

 

" ... I would appreciate (sic) if could arrange for this reminder to be distributed at the earliest opportunity.

 

Apart from these outstanding actions, the matter is considered closed.

 

Could you please pass on my appreciation to staff involved in the investigation process for their patience and input and wish them well in their future endeavours."

 

FOI application 340/5/1295 documents 4534 and 4535

 

 

"Action taken and why -

 

Mediation / Local Resolution. "

 

 

TOTALLY FALSIFIED

 

Nobody has mediated anything with me to this date.

 

Nothing has been resolved with me to this date.

 

 

 

"Any systemic issues identified

N/A"

 

 

NOT CORRECT

 

The CMC / Education Queensland investigation process raised several issues-

 

• Comments by Queensland Teachers' Union officers suggest that "more and more" QTU members were being bullied into ill health retirement in 2002. What action has been taken since 2002 to deal with this abuse? Are fewer teachers being bullied into ill-health retirement in 2009?

 

• What action has been taken since 2002 to protect classroom teachers from school principals who pressure them to join their branch of a political party? Principals need to be clearly instructed that this is not appropriate. It can affect their professional relationship and create a conflict of interest.

 

• Is it sufficient to simply make changes to wording of the official policies? Principals are not following the official policies.

 

• Classroom teachers who disclose child abuse by other teachers are very vulnerable to "payback" allegations. What action has been taken to protect classroom teachers who disclose child abuse?

 

• Are Queensland school principals commonly putting classroom teachers on DWP / MUP for engaging in professional discussion in a professional manner - for example, for expessing concern about the unsupervised groups of children who are roaming around the school, disrupting classes?

 

• What action has been taken to protect teachers from the falsification of their official records?

 

• What action has been taken to ensure the integrity of the records of Departmental investigations - to protect the records of these investigations from being falsified?

 

• Is the Education Queensland promotion system dysfunctional? Does the promotion of principals and deputy principals with poor listening / thinking / reading / writing skills and no knowledge of Departmental policies put classroom teachers at risk of harm?

 

• Should Education Queensland acting principals and acting deputy principals be expected to demonstrate awareness of - and respect for -  Education Queensland policies before they are promoted?

 

• If principals are selected because they "interview well" (because they are glib liars), will those principals encourage their students to lie to them?

 

• Do principals who bully their staff encourage students to bully each other?

 

• The District Office staff knew that the acting principal and acting deputy principal at my school were both very inexperienced. They knew that the acting principal's behaviour was affecting my health. They knew that the acting principal's total knowledge of the Diminished Workplace Performance process was contained on one small square sticky-note. Yet the District Office staff did nothing to protect me from the acting principal's abuse. Do Education Queensland District office staff have a responsibility to protect classroom teachers from the actions of inexperienced school principals?

 

• Are Queensland public servants being trained to edit disclosures out of their "frank and fearless" Briefing to the Minister?

 

• Are Aboriginal employees being abused by Education Queensland senior officers - used as puppets to conduct faux "internal reviews"?

 

• Are Human Rights and Equal Opportunity - trained "Discrimination solicitors" employed by Education Queensland to prevent discrimination? Or to facilitate discrimination by "losing" the evidence of discrimination?

 

• Is the Freedom of Information process being abused to continually "find" newly falsified "records" that protect the interests of abusive principals?

 

• Is it appropriate to appoint a person as Director of Ethical Standards when they are the subject of a CMC / Education Queensland investigation? And to allow this officer to control an investigation into themselves?

 

• In November 2004 the first internal reviewer "found" no evidence of workplace bullying - in documents that he knew were falsified. Then, one and half years later, the external "investigator" "found" that the falsified "records" had been placed secretly on my files. But to this day nobody has "considered" my responses to the falsified "records". And nobody has investigated the falsification of my records. And nobody has investigated the bullying. My complaint has been simply been side-stepped and declared "finalised'. Are CMC / Education Queensland investigations commonly conducted in this manner?

 

• When you first make a complaint to the CMC, you may not realise the extent of the corruption that you are dealing with. No normal person could possibly imagine the extent of the incompetence / corruption. So your first disclosure to the CMC may not seem to be "serious" and it will be passed to the "unit concerned". But when you gradually realise the true extent of the corruption, and you tell the CMC what you are discovering, the CMC refuse to read your further disclosures or to speak to you over the phone. Is this CMC practice appropriate? Does it facilitate systemic corruption?

 

• Is it appropriate for CMC officers to accept an internal review that they know is based on falsified "records"?

 

• Do CMC and Education Queensland officers commonly falsify official records by describing internal reviews as "independent investigations"?

 

• CMC officers do not seem to read disclosures. Is this an acceptable practice?

 

• Are CMC officers afraid to record disclosures that are made over the phone?

 

• Are CMC officers afraid to record disclosures that are political in nature?

 

• The standard of documentation by Education Queensland administrators is appalling. It is impossible to understand or to respond effectively to allegations that are secretly scribbled on sticky-notes and loose scraps of paper. And large numbers of official records are continually being "lost". It is impossible to understand the reason for decisions concerning you. This situation faciliates workplace abuse. What action has been taken since 2002 to improve the standard of Department of Education documentation?

 

• In particular, I am concerned about the poor standard of documentation of Education Queensland and CMC reports and decisions concerning teachers.

For example, on 4 January 2007, Helen Couper, Director Complaints services, CMC, emailed me to advise 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.

 

No departmental officer has ever tried to tell me such gibberish.

 

Many, many hours of my life during the past nine years have been drained away responding to this sort of public service gibberish - 

 

(The acting principal seems to have been secretly making falsified records of real and imaginary conversations concerning me.

The acting principal then seems to have hand-written notes to the usual principal on these falsified documents.

The usual principal also seems to have written notes on one of the falsified documents.

Then they put the twice-falsifed "records" in the Stage 1 Grievance file.

This created the false impression that these falsified and re-falsified records had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance investigation process.)

 

- but on the basis of what seems to be Education Queensland gibberish, Helen Couper advised me that the CMC did not propose to communicate with me further.

 

When I made an FOI application for the Education Queensland letter or report from which Helen Couper had copied this gibberish, the original document could not be found and Helen Couper claimed to have little memory of what she had written.

 

This is not the professional standard that one would expect.

 

• Every letter or report written by a Queensland public servant should be supported by a list of the documents that were consulted in preparing the document.

Until this is done, we will not have Freedom of Information.

 

And we will have public service decisions based on gibberish.

 

And the systemic corruption will continue.

 

 

 

I could give many more examples of systemic issues raised by this experience of the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process.

 

 

Mr Needham,  I am not at all satisfied with the means employed and the ends produced by the CMC / Education Queensland investigation process.

 

Are you?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

....................

 

A copy of this letter can also be found at : http://www.badapplebullies.com/letters.htm