Bad Apple Bullies

Bad Apple Bully school principals and departmental officers can bully Australian teachers into ill health - and out of work!

The horrible history of Queensland - why Queensland needed the CJC / CMC / CCC.

The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC, first called the CJC, now called the CCC) exists because the traditional avenues for complaint and investigation simply did not work in the years leading up to the Fitzgerald Commission.


The villainy of some of the elected representatives in Queensland went largely unhindered by the political process.

The exercise of brute parliamentary numbers, bolstered by a long-perfected gerrymander, prevented the exposure of criminality and the punishment of its practitioners.

The Queensland legal apparatus was unable or unwilling to rein in those who became partners in that criminal behaviour through bribery or patronage.

The Queensland police force was corrupted from the top and its machinery of discipline and punishment was ineffective.


Those who suffered or chafed under corruption or the wilful misuse of power faced dire consequences at the hands of a vindictive government and a police force beholden to it.

Their only avenues of redress were through their often feeble, sometime untrustworthy, parliamentary representatives and a media that, until it muscled up in the 1980s, failed its readers, viewers and listeners.



There was no independent body to which aggrieved citizens could have taken their concerns and been guaranteed anonymity and protection.

The rot stopped only after the Fitzgerald Commission played out to its bitter end.

Today's CMC, despite its blunders and its ponderous processes, is the strongest weapon Queenslander's have when it comes to keeping our institutions accountable.


That's how important it is.

Some have suffered at its hands.

But making the CMC even more secretive in its operations won't make it more accountable to its brief.


One of the great things about the CMC - in theory - is that it can be an avenue of complaint for those a) of limited legal knowledge and experience, b) those with just a half glimpse of the truth and c) those who are honest in their mistaken beliefs.


Proposed reforms pull up the welcome mat at the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, Terry Sweetman, The Sunday Mail, 7 July 2013


What happens when you make a complaint to the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC, CCC, CJC)?

Will the CMC actually investigate your complaint?


* When you try to contact the Education Queensland / CMC liaison officer they may not reply.


* They may seem to warn the people whose behaviour that you are complaining about that you are trying to make a disclosure.


* If you contact the CMC directly, CMC officers also seem to contact the people you are complaining about.


* The CMC seem to have a policy of "believing" lies that they are told by abusive school principals.

So, if you complain to the CMC that your principal bullied you in breach of several Education Queensland official policies, the CMC will simply ask your principal if she bullied you. 

And if your principal tells the CMC officers that "it was not bullying", the CMC officers will simply accept the word of the principal - because she is a principal and you are a teacher, and "in these cases we believe the principal".


* If you make a complaint directly to the CMC, there is a 2% chance that the CMC will investigate your complaint.


* When you speak to CMC officers (and some other public servants and some QTU officers) on the phone, they may respond in a very unpleasant tone of voice.

This may give you the impression that the CMC officer is on the verge of losing their temper.

This does not encourage you to feel safe about disclosing corruption to the CMC officers.

The impression - and it is only an impression - that I have is that -

a) no CMC officer wants to be the first person to "hear" your disclosure and to be responsible for dealing with your disclosure. So they adopt a discouraging tone of voice towards you. And

b) your phone call is being recorded and the CMC officer does not want to appear to be encouraging you to disclose corruption, so they make sure that their tone of voice is recorded as being discouraging.


* It is very easy for a CMC officer to carelessly or maliciously reduce the "Activity Register Report" record of your complaint to gibberish.


* "Decisions" made by CMC officers are strange.

They are very, very strange.

You are expected to trust and respect the integrity of these strange CMC decisions.

You may find this very difficult.


 * CMC decisions concerning you can be based on "feelings" that CMC officers claim to have about you, not on the facts of the situation.

So, for example, if you make a disclosure to a CMC officer in a document, she may not read the document.

And if you ring the officer to discuss your disclosure, she may not make any record of the disclosure that you make to her during the phone call.

She may simply record in an unsigned and undated note, " ... having spoken to CP (you, the complainant), I would have doubts about her credibility."

Claiming to have doubts about your credibility is, of course, much quicker and easier for the CMC officer than actually investigating your disclosure.


* You need to make a Freedom Of Information ( FOI ) application for the records of your complaint to find out if this is what is "going on".


* And you cannot accuse the CMC officers of being liars or corrupt, because you cannot prove that they did not have these "feelings" about you.


* CMC officers seem to "accept" anything done by Education Queensland in response to a complaint, however ridiculous the standard of "investigation".


* Queensland teachers are exposed to the risk of workplace abuse because abusive Education Queensland principals seem to know that the dysfunctional / incompetent / corrupt Education Queensland  /  CMC  /  PCMC "process" will allow them to bully teachers.


* "Anyone who works in Qld Government knows that the CMC only investigates what it is told to - and it only investigates the evidence that it is given, often by the very same people being investigated."


... Jase of West End, Reader's Comment, Peter Beattie: I wish I'd never accepted Los Angeles job as Trade Commissioner, Steven Wardill, The Courier-Mail, 14 July 201

How the CMC / CCC works - or doesn't.

First, some facts -

 3600 complaints were made to the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission in 2006-2007.

  • 2% of the complaints were actually investigated by the CMC.
  • 17% of the complaints were assessed as "needing no action".
  • 81% of the complaints were "referred back" to the public service department concerned.

Of the 81% of complaints to the CMC that were 'referred back" to the public service department concerned -

  • in 15% of cases, the public service departments did nothing.
  • in 54% of cases, the public service departments found that the complaint was "not substantiated".

(But how many of these public service departments allowed the public servant who had been complained about to control the investigation into their own behaviour? Because if you ring up the CMC and tell them that this is what is actually going on, they just say they have no problem with this. They will tell you that it is not their responsibility.)

  • in 31% of cases, some disciplinary or other action was taken in relation to the original complaint / allegation.

(But was the "disciplinary or other action" effective? For example, if you find evidence of that public servants are abusing official polices in order to bully teachers, is it effective to change a few words in those official policies and then send out a Media Release to announce the development of a "new policy"? Has the public - and the whistleblowers who sacrifice their health and their careers to report corruption - the right to expect change? The right to expect that the corruption will actually stop?)


Mr Beattie said ... "This is about good administration and this is about implementing what Fitzgerald intended to do."

  • Anti-crime agency "acted in right spirit", The Courier-Mail, 01 October 2002.
  • Crime and Misconduct Commission Annual Report 2006-07


Now - the real-life experiences on which these conclusions are based:

In December 2000 I was spending many hours every evening searching the internet, trying to find some information on the Diminished Work Performance Process ( DWP - now called MUP - Managing Unsatisfactory Performance ).


12 December 2000

6:18 PM I emailed Human Resources at Education Queensland Head Office.


"Subject: Help

I am a LOTE (Indonesian) teacher and I tried to discuss some concerns I had about the lack of support at my school.

My principal has put me on diminished work performance."

"I believe this is to prevent me from talking about my concerns."


(I asked how to make a grievance.)


"One big difficulty that I have is that I cannot get access to information.

The (grievance) material that I have been given can only be accessed from an administration computer.

I do not know if it is the right information or if it is complete.

I searched for information on my own computer and found none.

I was not even told that there was a policy on DWP till nine days after I had been told that I was on it.

It took another four days to get a copy of part of the grievance information.

Can you give me a link that will allow me to access more of the PREVENTING and RESOLVING GRIEVANCES material?"

(One month later, in January 2001, an Education Queensland industrial officer mailed me a copy of the Grievance Policy. )


Later that same evening I emailed Human Resources at Education Queensland Head Office again:


Wednesday 13 December 2000

1:12 A.M.

"Subject: Further question

Further to my earlier query, I believe this may be a public interest disclosure.

I have a copy of the whistleblowers protection act and I see that I am supposed to report it to the CJC (now called CMC - Crime and Misconduct Commission) liaison person.

Who would be the CJC liaison person in the Cairns area?"


Nobody ever answered this second email.


Because the Queensland Teacher's Union ( QTU ) organiser had told me that there was no hope at all of justice, that he had never known a Queensland teacher's Grievance to be supported, this silence from the CJC liaison officer seemed very frightening to me.

It seemed to support the QTU organiser's advice to me that the whole Education Queensland Grievance process was corrupt.


But a few hours later...

On the afternoon of Wednesday 13 December 2000, I phoned another QTU organiser in Brisbane ( I have been asked by Macrossans, the QTU solicitors, to conceal the name of this QTU organiser ) from a phone in my office at school.

This particular organiser was, I understood, supposed to support women teachers and LOTE (Languages other than English) teachers.


The local QTU organiser had warned me that I should not say anything that I could not prove, so I was afraid to discuss the political situation at the school and the District Office with this QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office.

( For details see Mrs GR, Acting Principal : )

So I was afraid to discuss the political situation in the school and the District Office with the QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office ( whose name I have concealed at the request of Macrossans, the QTU solicitors ).

I just described the bullying itself and asked this QTU organiser in the Brisbane office if I could make a complaint to the CJC ( now called the CMC ) because I had been put on the DWP for trying to discuss the number of children who were missing from the Grade 7 classrooms, roaming around the school.

The QTU organiser in the Brisbane office advised me that I could not complain to the CJC that I was being victimised for being a whistleblower.

She advised me that I needed to make a Grievance about the situation in the next few days.

Because once the DWP process actually began, I would not be allowed to make a grievance.


The local QTU organiser had not explained this to me.

And I had not been given a copy of the Education Queensland Grievance process.

Or of the DWP process.


In 2004 I found a FOI document - the scribbles on sticky-note 2421 F 60 -  that suggest to me that the specialist teacher in the next room listened-in to my conversation with the QTU Organiser in the Brisbane office, and that she may have thought that I was making a complaint to the CMC.

Her phone number is on this sticky-note.

I had the impression, after my phone call to the QTU organiser in the Brisbane office, that this teacher was discussing me with somebody on the phone.

And I kept noticing her staring at me in a wide-eyed, amazed sort of way.


Or maybe the QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office herself rang the Lynch-Mob State College to "tip off" the acting principal that I was thinking of making a CMC complaint or a Grievance about her abuse of the DWP process.


Anyway, somebody must have "tipped off" the usual principal, because the next day, -

- the day after my "I believe this may be a public interest disclosure ... Who would be the CJC liaison person in the Cairns area?"email to Human Resources and my phone call to the QTU organiser in the Brisbane Office  -

Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL (who had been on leave all term and who had not yet discussed acting principal Mrs GR's behaviour with me) came bouncing into the school like Tigger.

He bounced over to me in the staff room.

I asked if I could have a word with him.

I was not really sure what to make of his sudden appearance.

Had the Education Queensland CJC liaison officer alerted Mr EL to the fact that I was trying to make a disclosure?

Or had Mr EL been sent to me by the CMC Liaison officer so that I could make a disclosure to him?

But Mr EL's own behaviour seemed to be part of the problem.

In her letter to me dated 29 November 2000, Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR had written:


"I have spoken to him (usual principal Mr EL) about the matter and he is in agreement that the (DWP) process is warranted."


I had no idea what to make of acting principal Mrs GR's claim.

How could the usual principal Mr EL - 

  • a man I respected and trusted absolutely,
  • the man who had often told me, "You have raised the profile of LOTE at the school."
  • the man who had repeatedly urged me to work full time at his school,
  • the man who had assured me that he would deal with the problems at the school,
  • the man who knew he had let me down pretty badly the previous term, failing to deal with / seeming to forget all about a noise problem in my classroom.
  • the man who knew that all of the specialist teachers were concerned about the behaviour of the Grade 7 students, and who had been involved in our plan to deal with the situation by keeping a record of each student's behaviour -

- how could Mr EL possibly have agreed that I should be put on DWP, before discussing the situation with me?

It did not make sense to me.

I presumed that acting principal Mrs GR must be lying about Mr EL's behaviour.

So I had no idea what to make of Mr EL's sudden appearance at the school.

Had the CJC liaison officer warned him that I was trying to make a disclosure?

Should I disclose the political situation at the school and in the district office to him?

Or was this a trap?

Would I be punished for discussing the political situation?

I did not feel safe.


5 February 2001

I met Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL to listen to him read his Report on his investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance about acting principal Mrs GR's abuse of the DWP process.

Mrs GR was also at this meeting.

During the meeting, acting principal Mrs GR threatened five times that "action would be taken against me" if I continued to complain about her behaviour.

The real purpose of the meeting seemed to be to provide Mrs GR with the opportunity to threaten me.


So I was afraid to try to contact the Education Queensland CMC Liaison officer again for several months.

I had no real idea if the bullying was a Public Interest Disclosure ( PID ) at this stage.

I just wanted to ask the advice of the CMC Liaison officer.


6 July 2001

I phoned the CMC advisory line.

CMC officer Diana Mulcahy made a "record" of the phone call.

I did not disclose the political situation to Diana.

Diana Mulcahy's notes seem to be an honest "record".

Document 1 attached to CMC letter to me dated 6 July 2006.


9 July 2002

I retired on the grounds of ill health.

I was very, very grateful to be able to escape the corruption.

I respected and trusted the District Director absolutely.

On the day that I retired he twice assured me that he had the bullying under control.

I believed that we had dealt with a very difficult situation - Mrs GR's abuse and the political relationships that were affecting the situation -  informally but effectively.


Monday 15 July 2002

Six days after I had retired on the grounds of ill health.

4:49 pm I emailed Mrs GN, Principal Personnel Officer in The District Office-


"Anna Bligh has asked me to contact the Director-General by email to discuss the problems with the union response to bullying.

I will make it clear that I am happy with the District response to the situation. ...

I have no further problems with Education Queensland, the District or the school.

The grievance system gave me the opportunity to "have my say" and so, in my opinion, it worked well."


At this stage I believed that the abuse was over.

It was a very great relief.

I felt like my life was beginning again.


I had no idea that I was being tricked.

And that the abuse was going to continue to this date, 25 January, 2010.


6:05 pm Principal Personnel Officer Mrs GN sent my email to the District Director.




6:24 pm The District Director emailed Mrs GN and Ms CHR, Principal Advisor - Regional Services, The District Office.


"We should frame this one.

Well done all."


And on Tuesday 16 July at 7:06 am, Ms CHR, Principal Advisor - Regional Services, sent a copy of the District Director's email to Bill Jeffs, the Education Queensland / CMC Liaison officer.

So -

  • Bill Jeffs the CMC Liaison Officer,
  • The District Director,
  • The Principal Personnel Officer in The District Office
  • and the Principal Advisor - Regional Services in The District Office

were "all" congratulating each other.

2469 File G Human Resource Services Branch document 202, number at top right hand corner of document.

2733 File M Administrative Law Services Branch document 7, number at bottom of document.



What was so funny?

Why did my email need to be framed by "all"?


Because, of course, I had been comprehensively tricked.

I had been assured - twice - that the bullying was under control.

But actually -

  • A few days after my retirement the bully was given a significant promotion opportunity. She was appointed acting principal of a large local school. This promotion would be "confirmed" a few months later.


  • Huge numbers of falsified "records" concerning me had been secretly placed on two files - 2421 File F Lynch-Mob State College and 2469 File F The District office. This had entirely falsified the official records of usual principal Mr EL's investigation into my Stage I Grievance about Mrs GR's abuse of the DWP process. ( And Mr EL's own abuse of the DWP process, although I did not believe what Mrs GR was telling me about Mr EL's behaviour at that time. )


  • And because The District Office had published a report on my complaint that I knew nothing about. I did not even know that a District Office report was being written. A copy of the report was not given to me. And when I made an FOI application for "all documents concerning and related to me" in 2004, a copy of the report was not provided to me. By 27 January 2006 Ms CHR, Principal Advisor - Regional Services advised Kim Newman that all copies of this District Office report had been "lost". But many decisions concerning me - including CMC and Ombudsman decisions - seem to have been based on this "vanished" District Office report.

2875 File J Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 221, number at bottom of page.


30 September 2002

When Mrs GR had attacked me, I had immediately dropped out of all Labor party activities.

I did not want to cause problems for the two Labor Local Members, both of whom I respected and trusted.

I did not hold the Local Members responsible for Mrs GR's behaviour.

I knew that they had difficulty in finding people who were willing to become actively involved in local political activites, and that they had to 'do their best" with quite a "mixed bunch" of supporters.

But, in September 2002 I believed that the situation had been resolved at last and that I could now enjoy my retirement doing voluntary work, helping around the office of Local Member B.

So I went along to an evening meeting of Local Member B's branch, the Branch that I had been a member of for several years.

During this meeting I said how grateful I was that I had been able to meet Anna Bligh, the Minister of Education at that time, at the Community Cabinet meeting and that a problem that I had discussed with the Minister had been sorted out.

Wasn't the Labor party wonderful?

But during the meeing Local Member B's behaviour towards me seemed to be very strange.

She seemed to hint to the group two or three times that my application to re-join the Labor party would not be accepted by "Head Office".

I was bewildered.

Why wouldn't my application be accepted?

I had tried to deal with Mrs GR's bullying in the best way possible for the Labor party.

And the situation had now been resolved informally.

So why would the Labor party refuse to accept me back as a member?


My application for membership of the Labor party was then "lost", twice.

And all invitations to local Labor party events stopped.


This was when I began to suspect that something was "going on".


One of the members of the Labor party who was present at that meeting later began to stalk me -


10 January 2003


I spoke to an officer on the CMC advisory line.


I did not disclose to her the political situation at the school or the District office.

I just explained that I had been bullied, and that on the day of my retirement I had been assured - twice - by the District Director that the bullying was under control.

But that I now realised that the bully had actually been given a significant promotion opportunity, as acting principal of a large local school, a few days after my retirement.

And I had just been told that this promotion had been "confirmed".

I said that this promotion of the bully was not what the District Director had led me to expect during our meeting.

And that I felt that I had been significantly tricked.

The CMC officer said that the situation could be "marginal misconduct".


I rang Bill Jeffs, the Education Queensland CMC Liaison Officer.

I explained the situation to him.

Bill Jeffs said that it was not misconduct.


I said that that seemed strange, because a CMC officer had just advised me that it might be misconduct.

Bill Jeffs asked me if the CMC officer had said that it was the behaviour of the District Director that was misconduct.

Bill Jeffs said that the Education Queensland Ethical Standards Unit would "take a look at it".


20 January 2003

I rang the CMC advisory line again.

I spoke to Linda.


When I told Linda my name I was disconnected.


When I rang back again I was connected to Eve Gardiner.

Eve read out a list of the dates on which I had contacted the CMC.

She seemed to be very annoyed with me.

I was shocked.

I had rung the CMC for advice.

I had not anticipated that the CMC would be keeping records of my phone calls and that they would become annoyed with me for seeking their advice on how to deal with the situation.

Eve said that I could send a complaint to the CMC but the Ombudsman's department was the department that reviews decisions.

Eve advised me to complain to the Ombudsman.


26 February 2003

5:44 PM

I emailed Peter Beattie at The Premier's Office.

I made a full disclosure to Peter Beattie of the conflict of interest  (a political relationship) in the District Office that was affecting my complaint.

I did not copy this email to anybody.

"Dear Mr Beattie,

... I have tried very hard for two years to deal with this situation in a way that does no harm to the Labor party.

I have been an active Labor party member and an active union member for several years.

I do not want to do anything to harm the Labor party - but I do not want to suffer injustice just BECAUSE I am a member of the Labor party. ...

... both (Lynch-Mob State School acting principal Mrs GR) (the bully) and I were Labor party members when this all began.

We both worked for (I disclosed the political relationship that had created a conflict of interest in the District Office).

Because I did not want to cause friction in the local groups I have dropped out of all activities with the Labor party since this all began two years ago.

I have avoided involving the local members in the problem.

But it meant that I had to deal with it alone.

Because (of the conflict of interest) I was very reluctant to make a formal complaint to the Industrial Relations Tribunal with the resulting publicity.

I tried very hard to deal with the bullying informally.  ...

I feel that I have tried to "do the right thing" by the Labor party and I have suffered because of it.

And that other teachers have now been negligently exposed to a toxic environment....

Mr Beattie, the corruption (for lack of a better word) must stop somewhere.

Please show me that my faith in the Labor party was not misplaced. ...

have the integrity to deal with this bully. ...

If you, the Premier, will do nothing about this situation - well I will have to abandon all hope of the Labor party. ..."

This email was received by Michele Rice, the Office of the Premier on Thursday, 27 February 2003 at 7:51 AM.


28 February 2003

I flew to Brisbane and spoke to John Ryan, Director, Human Resource Operations, about my concerns.

I did not disclose the political situation at the school or the District Office to John Ryan.

I explained that I had made a grievance about the systemic abuse of the DWP process and Grievance process to bully classroom teachers.

The District Director had met me on the day of my retirement and had twice assured me that the bullying was under control.

But actually the bully seemed to have been promoted a few days later.

And now the promotion had been confirmed.

What was going on?

Who could possibly have given the bully a reference?


I was so stressed by the situation that the right side of my face was continually twitching.

I had to hold the right side of my face still so that I could speak to John Ryan.


John Ryan promised to investigate.


23 April 2003

John Ryan wrote to me, making various offensive statements concerning me.

His opinions concerning me seemed to be based on malicious gossip:

"I have enquired into the background surrounding your grievance ...

I am advised ...

I am further advised ...

I am of the view ...

I am satisfied ...

I now consider this matter to be finalised and I have instructed that all correspondence files should note this matter must not be discussed with you any further."


29 June 2003

2:06 PM

I re-sent the full 26 February 2003 disclosure to Peter Beattie to the Office of the Premier again.

The Office of the Public Service Commissioner have a copy of this full disclosure. You can see the first part of the email at the bottom of  OPS 70524 FOLIO 23


Saturday 9 August 2003

4:21 pm I emailed a reponse to John Ryan's 23 April 2003 letter to me to The Premier.

I copied the email to -

  • the Ombudsman,

  • Education Queensland Human Resources,

  • Anna Bligh,

  • and the CMC.

Education Queensland have a copy of my response at 2606 File E documents 100-111 numbered backwards at the top right hand corner of the documents.

This file 2606 E seems to be the file of documents that the CMC handed to Education Queensland for investigation on 13 February 2004.

It is headed "Matters Assessed MI-03-0035".


I complained that John Ryan had told me that he would investigate my concerns about Mrs GR's promotion.

But he had "investigated" only in the sense that he had written down what the people who bullied me had told him to write.

I had not been allowed to respond to these new allegations before his report was written.

I had not been allowed Natural Justice.

  • The CMC "record" that they received my complaint MI-03-0035 on 9 August 2003.

  • But they did not actually hand my complaint to Education Queensland till 13 February 2004, several weeks after I had disclosed to Eve Gardiner -  both in writing and during a phone conversation - the conflict of interest on political grounds that seemed to be affecting my case.


26 August 2003

Eve Gardiner and Peter Jones seem to have prepared the 3 September 2003 letter to me.

"Noted that matter has already been discussed with CP (i.e. the complainant - me)  / Liaison Officer.

Action taken:

"no record of any contact between CMC and Ed Qld.

(Note the change of story here.

First these CMC officers say that the matter has been discussed with the Liaison Officer.

Then they say that there is no record of any contact between CMC and Ed QLD.)

CP (complainant - me) has discussed?

Letter drafted to CP."

Case Management Plan MI-03-0035


But there had been some contact between the CMC and Education Queensland.

Because during an earlier phone call Eve had said to me, "It wasn't bullying."

I had been bewildered by Eve's comment.

I knew that I had been bullied because of the malicious manner in which Lynch-Mob State College Mrs GR had spoken to me.

I told Eve that Mrs GR had not been into my classroom for twelve months, so how could Mrs GR possibly claim to have sudden "concerns" about me?

Eve said that somebody else may have been delegated to watch me teach.

I told Eve that this had not happened.

Nobody had been delegated to watch me teach.

Eve said that "in these cases the CMC believed the principal".

So I knew that Eve Gardiner had been in contact with the Department of Education, and she had been "fobbed off" with this untruthful story.

And Eve Gardiner told me about this before 26 November 2003.


Which gave me the impression that Eve Gardiner had either -

  • spoken to Mr EL and Mrs GR and been told this false story that somebody had been delegated to watch me teach.

And the records of this phone conversation are being concealed from me to this date, 13 April 2009.

  • or had seen a document in which this false claim had been made. (Possibly the "lost" Cairns District Office report discussed by Kim Newman and Ms CHR, Principal Advisor - Regional Services on 27 January 2006.)

And the document in which this false claim was made is being concealed from me to this date, 25 January, 2010.


When the 2469 documents (the file of falsified documents that Mr EL sent to the District office after my retirement, creating the false impression that they had been discussed with me during his investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance) were released to me after 12 July 2004 -


I discovered 2469 F Document 72 (number at the top right hand corner ), Lynch-Mob State College acting deputy principal Miss AL's falsified record dated 13 October 2000 .


The 2469 version of Document 72 had been re-falsified with a hand-written note by acting principal Mrs GR -


"Confidential request made to (Grade 7 teacher) Leigh to act as "supportive colleague" to (my name) to try to give her some positive BM ( behaviour management) strategies.

Leigh agreed to try to do this."


Which suggests to me that Eve Gardiner knew about this falsified claim, and possibly also about the mass of falsified records hidden on my Education Queensland files, before November 2003.


3 September 2003

Robert Walker, Executive Legal Officer, Receivals and Assessments Unit, Complaints Services, CMC, wrote to me in response to my 9 August 2003 letter to The Premier.

"It is not considered the behaviour described in your concerns could, if proved, amount to official misconduct as defined in the Act as the information could not, if proved, amount to a criminal offence or provide reasonable grounds to warrant dismissal.

Accordingly, the CMC is unable to deal with your concerns."


  • So, on 3 September 2003, the CMC did not intend to do anything about my complaint.

  • And there is no record in the "case management plan MI-03-0035" of my disclosure of the political situation to Eve Gardiner on 26 November 2003.

  • But after my 26 November 2003 phone call, the CMC officers were suddenly in a rush to send my complaint to the Department for investigation.


6 November 2003

I disclosed the political situation and the conflict of interest in the District office in an email to Ombudsman R.S.

I copied the email to the CMC at 12:40 (it is the second part of this document). 

2606 File E Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, documents 135-180. This is the original document. The disclosure of the discrimination on the grounds of political belief / conflict of interest is at the end of this document.


"Email received addressed to (the ombudsman).

Allocated to MEG (Eve Gardiner).

MEG to discuss with (the Ombudsman)."


26 November 2003

I discussed the political relationships that were affecting my "case", including the conflict of interest in the District office-

a) with an Ombudsman

b) and with Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, during lengthy phone conversations. 


This was the first time that I had discussed the political situation with a CMC officer.

It was not a good experience.

Eve Gardiner recorded the phone call in the Activity Register Report MI-03-0035, page 1-

" .. CP said she had been discriminated against for her political beliefs by Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR.

To support this allegation, CP said that both she and CP had been members of the Labor party, but that she (CP) left the Labor party and this is the reason for the discrimination."


It is very easy for a CMC officer to make your complaint sound ridiculous.

Partly because what has been done to you is so outrageous, that it seems to be ridiculous.


"She is not aware of any other non-Labor party person being discriminated against."

To the best of my knowledge, there was no other member of staff at the school who was a Labor party member and who had refused to join Mrs GR's branch of the Labor party.


"CP also stated that Mrs GR is the wife of the District Director of Education Queensland, so there is a conflict of interest."

This is not what I told Eve.

It is so easy for a CMC officer to carelessly or maliciously reduce the record of your complaint to gibberish.


Eve Gardiner seems to have made an undated and unsigned "record" of my phone call-

"Peter, re your message to remind you about what we'd discussed:

"CP (me - the complainant) complained that I had not understood her complaint / allegation.

(I'd used one of her headings 'This letter demonstrates the lack of effective leadership in Education Queensland. A "blind eye" has been turned to the workplace bullying'."


In these notes Eve is quoting from my 9 August 2003 response to John Ryan's letter to me 2606 File E documents 100-111.

But on 26 November 2003 I had discussed with Eve my 6 November 2003 full disclosure of the political situation.

Eve does not seem to have made any written record of my disclosure of the political situation.


"CP then complained that this was not what she was alleging."

Notice that Eve avoids actually recording my disclosure of the political situation.


"She has sent numerous emails since."


I had been very worried about Eve's behaviour during our phone call.

I was worried that Eve was not recording my disclosure to her accurately.

I wanted to make sure that there was an accurate written record of my disclosure.


Notice that Eve avoids actually recording the contents of my emails.

Eve seems to "spin" the problem.

In Eve's "records" the problem becomes my emails.


"... as well as telephone converstions (I have entered them briefly into the activity register)."

Note the way in which Eve avoids actually recording the disclosure of the political situation that I had made to her during that phone call.


"The emails continue, and another one has been received today (I've just got the file back from Registry)"

Note the way in which Eve again avoids actually recording what my emails were about.

Eve again seems to "spin" my emails into being the problem.


"CP has made numerous allegations, including that she has been stalked by Mrs GR, and was discriminated (sic) by Mrs GR, however, CP has continued to send documentation and the allegations have been, to say the least, copious.'


Eve trivialises my allegation. 

Note Eve's lack of respect for me as a complainant.


"CP's new email today lists 31 allegations." 


Eve neglects to point out that during our phone call she had told me that I had to make allegations.

Eve told me that my letter of complaint to the CMC should have begun with a list of allegations.

I made this list in response to Eve's advice to me.


"It seems to be a workplace bullying and harassment issue, however, from the information in the emails and having spoken to CP, I would have doubts about her credibility."


Eve Gardiner would have had no doubts at all about my credibility.


Note how CMC decisions concerning you can be based on "feelings" that CMC officers claim to have about you, not on the facts of the situation.

And you cannot prove that the CMC officers did not have these "feelings" about you.


"When we spoke, you were going to consider the matter for assessment - if it's to be sent to Dept, can I suggest it's done so quickly for obvious reasons."

File No. MI-03-0035 Part 1 Document 4 attached to CMC letter to me dated 6 July 2006.


So, on 3 September 2003 the CMC wrote to me to tell me that they were not going to take any action on my complaint.

But after my 26 November 2003 phone call the CMC officers are suddenly in a rush to send my complaint to the Department for investigation.

And they have not made any written record of my 26 November 2003 disclosure to Eve Gardiner - presumably the reason for their change of heart.


" ... if it's to be sent to Dept, can I suggest it's done so quickly for obvious reasons."


What were the "obvious reasons" why Eve Gardiner wanted my complaint sent to Education Queensland quickly?

Because I had made an FOI application for the documents that explained the "secret reason" why I "had to be" put on DWP?

It would have been obvious to Education Queensland officers and CMC officers that I was going to discover the mass of falsified "records" that had been secretly placed on my Education Queensland files.

Were the CMC officers in a rush to get my complaint to Education Queensland before I found the falsified "records"?

So that the Education Queensland "investigation" into my complaint could be based on the falsified records?

So that "no evidence" could be found of the bullying?


Following the suggestions made to me by Eve Gardiner during our phone call, I edited my disclosure and emailed it to Eve Gardiner CMC again at 5:32 PM and to the Ombudsman at 7:03 PM on the evening of Wednesday 26 November 2003.


The CMC obviously handed the disclosure to Education Queensland because Education Queensland have several copies of this disclosure in -

a) Administrative Law Services Branch FOI 2733 Files X and Y

and also in

b) Workforce Standards and Performance Unit 2606 files E and F.


  • But my disclosure of discrimination and conflict of interest on political grounds - my main disclosure to the CMC - was either concealed from or was ignored by the Education Queensland "internal reviewer" of my complaint.



31 December 2004

This is the first record on the Case Management Plan MI-03-0035 since 25 August 2003.

Kim Davies and Peter jones were asked to "examine latest correspondence from CP and determine whether any further assessment is required."

Still no mention of the disclosure that I made to Eve on 26 November 2003.


5 January 2004

"Matter is currently with MEG (Eve Gardiner) in view of ongoing volume of material provided by CP."

The CMC officers do not see the corruption as the problem.

They see your complaint about the corruption as the problem.


Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, stated:

"Rang CP (complainant - me) to advise of determination, however the number CP initially provided is the (Eve names Lynch-Mob State College where the usual principal E.L. was still working.) (CP has not been there for 2 years)."

Page 5 CMC Activity Register Report M1-03-0035


On February 5 2004 I had not been working at that school for a full three years. 

I never contacted Eve Gardiner from the school, nor did I ever ask her to ring me at the school.

I always rang the CMC from home.

If Eve could not catch me on the phone, she could easily have sent me an email.


So why did Eve Gardiner, CMC Officer, ring Lynch-Mob State College, the school where usual principal E.L. was working, on Thursday 5 February 2004?


Saturday 7 February 2004

The Labor party won the Queensland state election.


Monday 9 February 2004

Eve Gardiner emailed me and asked me to phone her so that she could discuss "the CMC's determination of your complaint".

She told me that the CMC were going to hand my complaint to Education Queensland.


25 March 2004

I called the CMC advisory line.

I spoke to Lee-Anne.

She switched me to Eve Gardiner.

Eve told me that Education Queensland could refuse to investigate my complaint and that the CMC could not intervene.

Ken Smith, the Director-General, was head of his department and neither the Premier nor the Minister could intervene.

I could appeal the decsision with the Ombudsman.

Eve told me that the CMC received many complaints.

There were problems in all workplaces.

My case was no different to any other case.

I had the impression that Eve was suggesting to me that she did not believe that I was being treated badly for political reasons.


26 March 2004

I received the first FOI 2421 documents.

11:12 am I  reported to David Turner, the Education Queensland FOI officer that document 2421 F 61 had been falsified.

"What should I do about falsified documents?

Who should I report this to?"


11:18 am I reported to the QTU that one of my documents had been falsified.


3:00 pm I emailed Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland A/ FOI Co-ordinator:

"I notice that in File F 56 there is a note from a parent.

You have denied access to it because you state that it deals with the grievance process that I was involved with.

I was not told that a parent had complained / asked for their child to be withdrawn from LOTE.

I was never shown this letter.

In what sense was it part of the grievance process?"


I rang my solicitor.


I rang my Local Member.


I rang the QTU. I was told to ring back on Monday.


I rang Stephannie Kalas. I was told that she would ring back on Monday.


4:21 pm an email arrived from an unnamed person at

"Attached please find response to your email received on 19 February 2004.

If you are still unable to open the attachment please let me know by return email and I will post the original signed letter."

When I tried to reply to this email I was attacked by a backdoor subseven Trojan horse from computer no. 211 243 9 138 3586


The letter eventually arrived by mail.

It was dated 26 March 2004.

But the letter made no reference to my emails reporting that my documents had been falsified-

"I understand that you have lodged a complaint with the Crime and Misconduct Commission regarding your employment issues with Education Queensland and that these matters will be investigated in due course."


So, on 26 March 2004, the Education Queensland official records stated that my complaint was going to be investigated.


"As previously advised, Education Queensland will not be corresponding with you any further in regard to the employment matters you have raised.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Whittaker

Assistant Director-General, Shared Services."


Note the hidden message in the letter, the answer to my question -

"What should I do about falsified documents?

Who should I report this to?"

was nobody - nobody in Education Queensland was going to read my letters and emails reporting that my "official records" had been falsified.


12 April 2004

11:08 AM I emailed Keith Hynes and copied the email to the CMC and Ken Smith.

"Hello Mr Hynes

I understand that you are liaising with the CMC and that an impartial investigator will investigate my complaint.

When the investigator is appointed I would appreciate it if you would advise him or her that I wish to discuss certain points-

  • One of the FOI documents that was finally sent to me has been falsified. It purports to be a note to me but it was never given to me or discussed with me. I was given a different letter. Another document has been changed.

  • Several of the documents that were refused to me were never shown to me and never discussed with me. I strongly suspect that they may also have been falsified.

  • I wish to detail my complaint that I was victimised because I disclosed child abuse. And that I was discriminated against.

  • I wish to discuss certain conflict of interest issues."

I received no receipt for this email from the CMC, so I re-sent it on Tuesday 13 April at 8:14am and the CMC sent a receipt at 6:06 pm.


15 August 2004

2:30 pm Helen Couper of the CMC emailed Eve Gardiner.

She copied this email to Peter Jones, Diana Mulcahy and Linda Trewin.

  • "Subject: Complaints of (my name) MI-03-0035 & 04-1824


    The relevant files - or parts thereof - are on their way back to you, with the draft letter.

    before we send the letter to (my name), can we ascertain from Ed Qld where their investigation is at."


    So, on 15 August 2004 Helen Couper -


    a) still seems to have believed that Education Queensland were conducting an investigation into my complaint.

  • She had not yet been told that the "investigation" had been down-graded to an "internal review" by a junior employee of Education Queensland.


    And that is what is still on the official CMC records concerning me - that my complaint was being "investigated".


    b) had not yet sent a certain letter to me - presumably a letter to advise me that my complaint that my Education Queensland "records" had been falsified was being investigated.


    "If, for example, the investigation is complete and the allegations unsubstantiated, and / or they have decided that it is an unjustifiable use of resources to deal with the complaint any further, I do not want to exacerbate the matter by referring the further allegation to them to deal with."


  • So the "further allegation" - that my files had been filled with a mass of falsified documents - had still not been referred to Education Queensland to deal with on 15 August 2004.

    The CMC officers knew that the Education Queensland "investigation" was being based on this mass of falsified documents.

    But they did not want to "exacerbate" the situation by drawing this fact to the attention of Education Queensland.


    You might find this CMC decision very, very strange.


    "Please have a chat to me about the matter once you have spoken with Ed QLD.



    Document 20 attached to CMC letter to me dated 6 July 2006.


  • 18 October 2004

    I phoned the CMC and spoke to Diana Mulcahy.

    She seemed to become angry with me when I told her that the "investigation" was not an investigation, it was an "internal review", and that it was being conducted by an Education Queensland employeee under the direction of John Ryan.

    Diana repeatedly told me that the CMC had been advised in May that there would be an external investigation.

    I told Diana the name of the "internal reviewer".

    I asked Diana to look up his name on the Education Queensland website.

    Eventually Diana found the "internal reviewer"s name on the Education Queensland website and she had to acknowledge that he was an Education Queensland employee.

    She told me that she would take the matter up with senior officers.


    19 October 2004

    I spoke to Diana Mulcahy again by phone.

    She told me that she had confirmed that the "external investigation" was actually an "internal review".

    She advised me tht if the "internal review" was finalised - and she told me that it was - the CMC would probably just accept it because that was what they could do.

    The CMC had simply sent my complaint to Ken Smith to deal with as he saw fit.

    The CMC could do that under the legislation.


    Diana said that the CMC records stated that in May 2004 the investigation was to be external.

    She stressed to me that the CMC records did not make clear who had given the CMC this information.


    Diana told me that my documents were "with a senior CMC officer".

    I was often told by junior CMC officers that a senior officer had all of my documents, and that was why they knew nothing about my case.

    Which gave me the impression that my complaint was being taken seriously by a senior CMC officer.

    Helen Couper, Director of Complaints Services, CMC, was named by one junior CMC officer.

    But when I eventually spoke to Helen Couper, she also seemed to know nothing about my case.


    10 April 2005

    Russell Pearce, Acting Director, Complaints Services, wrote a letter to me.

    "On 29 April 2004, the CMC received a copy of an email you had sent to Mr Keith Hynes ( former Director, Education Queensland Ethical Standards Unit ).

    Attached to the email was a letter you had addressed to Mr Hynes.

    Within that letter you made an allegation that officers of Education Queensland had falsified certain documentation.

    ... on or about 2 July 2004, ...

    i.e. two months later

    ... the CMC duly referred the matter to Education Queensland."


    But this does not appear to be true, if we accept the statements made by Helen Couper in her email to Eve Gardiner dated 15 August 2004.


    Tuesday 12 April 2005

    10:00 AM : Education Queensland officers and CMC officers had a "Monthly Liaison Meeting".

    Russell Pearce, Linda Trewin, Jeffrey Farrah and Kathy Munro represented the CMC.

    John Ryan, Peter Edwards and Kim Newman represented Education Queensland.


    "Matters for discussion:

    4. (My name) - MI-03-0035 & MI-04-1824 (John Ryan)"

    I presume this means that my "case" was being managed by John Ryan.

    I presume that these hand-written notes were written by Kim Newman:

    "(my name) - grievance history - ill health retired for ... issue.

  • falsified record
  • no action - bullying

    EQ did a review ..."


    Let's be frank.

  • What Education Queensland calls a "review" any normal person would call -

    "One junior Aboriginal Education Queensland employee - a person who identifies with an oral culture - read the first page of her complaint and a huge mass of falsified "records" of real and imaginary conversations concerning her that had secretly been placed on her files.

    We did not give him / jumbled up the remaining 28 pages of her complaint.

    And we hid her main complaint to the CMC. 

    And we did not allow him to / he decided not to "consider" her responses to the mass of falsified "records" because ..."


    "... CMC given copy of review at December meeting.

  • upset review not I (nvestigation)

  • claiming falsified records"

    2703  File G Workforce Standards and Performance Unit documents 6-8 contained in 2875 File C Legal and Administrative Law Branch documents 89-91, released to me for the first time after 11 October 2006.


    This correct.

    I am "upset" because -

  • My complaint concerned discrimination.

    Education Queensland employ many solicitors and barristers.

  • And they employ at least one discrimination solicitor with previous experience at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

    But senior officers of Education Queensland chose an Aboriginal employee with no qualifications in education, law or psychology, to "review" my discrimination complaint.


  • The "internal review" had been controlled by the person whose behaviour I had complained about to the Crime and Misconduct Commission.


  • The "internal review" was based on a huge mass of falsified "records" that I knew nothing about. They had been placed secretly on my Education Queensland files in breach of several Education Queensland policies.


  • The "internal review" only began when it became clear that I was going to find the falsified documents under FOI.


  • The 29  November 2000 agreement between Lynch-Mob State College acting principal GR and usual principal EL that "the (DWP) process is justified" must have been based on these falsified "records" (or gossip about their contents) if they existed at that time.
  • This agreement was recorded in a letter handed to me on 29 November 2000 and placed on my official records - 2421 File F Ms GR's private file of falsified "records", document 59 - number at the top right hand corner of the document.

    And also 2469 File F Mr EL's file of documents that he used when investigating my Stage 1 Grievance, document 19, number at the top right hand corner of the document.


  • The falsified records were not shown to me or discussed with me before Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL dismissed my Stage I grievance about the abuse of the DWP process on February 5 2001. Mr EL's decision must have been based on these falsified "records" (or gossip about their contents) if they existed at that time.


  • The two main files of falsified "records" were concealed from me till some of the 2421 File F falsified documents were gradually released to me under Freedom of Information (FOI) after 27 April 2004, 


  • A large number of falsified and re-falsified documents were not released to me till after 12 July 2004.


  • The "internal reviewer" completed the first draft review of the falsified documents on 29 July 2004, only 17 days after the second mass of 2469 File F falsified and concealed FOI documents had been released to me for the first time (refer to FOI document 2733 L 15). I was being denied Natural Justice.


  • Several documents "vanished" during the FOI process and have not been released to me to this date, 13 April 2009,


  • There are several references in the FOI documents to "investigations" that seem to have been secretly conducted into my complaint,


  • The reports of these "investigations" are being concealed from me to this date, 13 April 2009.

  • The reviewer did not "consider" my response to the falsified "records". He just copied from the falsified "records".


  • The Education Queensland "Internal Review", and the CMC "acceptance" of the review, seems to provide proof that the abuse of Queensland teachers is systemic.


    "... CMC handed letter emailed to (my name) yesterday & will send copy to her by mail.

    NFC (no further concern, I presume) about any matters except falsification of records - RP urged EQ to take same stance. ..."

    • What on earth would motivate Russell Pearce, CMC officer, to urge Education Queensland to have no further concern about the bullying?

    " ... CMC to send copy of letter to DG. ..."

    2703  File G Workforce Standards and Performance Unit documents 6-8 contained in 2875 File C Legal and Administrative Law Branch documents 89-91, released to me for the first time after 11 October 2006.


    16 July 2006

    I wrote to the members of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee (PCMC) -

    Paul Hoolihan, Chairperson and Member for Keppel

    Simon Finn (ALP), Member for Yeerongpilly

  • Christine Smith (ALP), Member for Burleigh

    Dean Wells (ALP), member for Murrumba

    Howard Hobbs (LNP), Member for Warrego

    Liz Cunningham (Independent), Member for Gladstone

    Jack Dempsey (LNP), Member for Bundaberg

  • I complained that, on 19 April 2005, Russell Pearce, Acting Director Complaints Services, CMC, had written to me to advise me that he had "accepted" the Education Queensland "internal review" of my complaint, despite the fact that -


    A significant conflict of interest on political grounds in the District Office had affected my case -

    but the "internal reviewer" had not been allowed to ask any questions about this conflict of interest!


    4 January 2007

    The CMC advised me that ...

  • "the department considers that it has done all that it can to address your concerns. ... I would ask that you please refrain from sending any further emails or other correspondence to, and from telephoning, the CMC."

    In making this decision the CMC are fully aware that -

    • for the past six and a half years Education Queensland senior Officers have refused to show me the "notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.)  from Desley" or to explain what the allegations against me were in the "notes to (Grade 7 teacher N.T.)  from Desley"  that prompted Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR's comments to the staff concerning me on 10 November 2000.

    (these real or imaginary "secret allegations" concerning me are described in more detail at

    • for the past six and a half years Education Queensland senior officers have refuse to show me the  "lot of allegations" on "lots of pieces of paper to prove how things may have happened." or to explain what these secret allegations were.

    • and for the past six and a half years Education Queensland senior officers have refused to allow me -
    1. to know what the allegations were that triggered Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR's and usual principal Mr EL's seemingly irrational series of decisions concerning me,

    2. the opportunity to respond to the allegations against me,

    3. the opportunity to have my responses to the allegations considered,

    4. the opportunity to be found innocent of these allegations

    5. and to have the decision to punish me officially struck off my file.


    23 February 2007

    The Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee finally replied to my letter dated 16 July 2006.

    They said that they had no jurisdiction in relation to Education Queensland.

    The CMC chairperson had reviewed my case and he had told the PCMC that the CMC officers had behaved appropriately.

    And the PCMC had simply accepted the advice of the CMC chairperson.


    In simply accepting the decision of the CMC to "turn a blind eye" to -

    • the systemic abuse of the Queensland Department of Education Managing Unsatisfactory Performance process 
    • and the systemic abuse of the Grievance Process

    to bully Queensland classroom teachers into ill health retirement,


    These members of the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee have passively facilitated the ongoing abuse of all Queensland classroom teachers.


    A serious flaw in the Crime and Misconduct Act allows the Queensland government to sweep corruption under the carpet by voting along party lines.

    The Labor Government has a 4-3 majority on the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee.

    So the Labor Government can use its numbers to effectively ignore a complaint of official misconduct.

    A leading authority on statutory interpretation, QUT senior lecturer Alastair MacAdam, says that Section 295 of the Crime and Misconduct Act "urgently and immediately requires amendment".

    "A serious matter of misbehaviour by the executive government can be dismissed by the government majority," Mr MacAdam said.

    Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek agreed that the committee structure that "allows the government of the day to wash its hands of matters dealing with corruption".


    The April 2009 committee is again chaired by Mr Paul Hoolihan, Member for Keppel.

    It includes -

    • Betty Kiernan (ALP),
    • Mark Ryan (ALP)
    • Steve Wettenhall (ALP).
    • Mr Dempsey (LNP),
    • Steve Dickson (LNP),
    • Scott Emerson (LNP),



    15 February 2008

    Seven and a half years since I first wrote to the District Director and asked for the 29 November 2000 agreement between Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR and Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL that "the (DWP) process is warranted" to be investigated, David Garland, Principal Advisor, Investigations and Complaints, Ethical Standards, Education Queensland sent the CMC a "Final Outcome Advice".

    I can only presume that David Garland is newly appointed to this position, that he knows nothing whatsoever about my complaint and that he is simply being used as a Department of Education puppet to sign a letter that he knows nothing about.

    Mr Garland reports that my complaint had been partly substantiated.

    That is correct.

    My complaint was only partly substantiated becaause it was only partly investigated.

    The Verifact Investigator substantiated my complaint that a huge mass of falsified "records" had been secretly placed on two files -

    1) File F 2421 - which was described in 2004  as "Lynch-Mob State School" documents, and to all but four of which Stephannie Kalas Acting FOI Co-ordinator, Education Queensland refused me access on 23 March 2004 because, Stephannie advised me,

    "These documents deal with the grievance process you were involved with ..."

    But in 2006 Mrs GR seems to have changed her story concerning the 2421 File F documents. Mrs GR seems to have persuaded the Verifact investigator that the 2421 File F documents were a private file of falsified "records" concerning me that she was keeping in her own possession.

    2) File 2469 F . This file seems to be the file of documents that Mr EL sent to the District Office after my retirement, creating the false impression that these documents had been discussed with me before he dismissed my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR's - and his own - abuse of the DWP process.

    What Mr Garland does not explain is that the Verifact investigation was stopped at this point, and that the Verifact investigator was not allowed to investigate -

    • the actual falsification of the "records".

    • the 29 November 2000 agreement between Mrs GR and Mr EL that "the (DWP) process is warranted" which was based on these falsified "records" or gossip about the contents of these falsified "records"

    • Mr EL's 5 February 2001 dismissal of my Stage I Grievance about Mrs GR's - and his own - abuse of the DWP process. This decision was based on these falsified "records" or on gossip about these "records".

    • the systemic abuse of the DWP (now called MUP) and Grievance processes to bully Queensland teachers into ill health and out of work.


    "All other allegations remain unsubstantiated"

    Mr Garland does not make clear that "all other allegations remain unsubstantiated" because they were not investigated.

    Once the Verifact investigator began to substantiate my complaints, the investigation was stopped.


    Mr Garland seems to claim that Education Queensland had taken action to deal with the abuse -

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


    The only evidence that I have found to substantiate this claim is a letter written on 23 August 2006 by Regan Nuemann, Director, Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, to the Regional Executive Director.

    "The investigation found that (my name) had not been placed on a formal Diminished Work Performance program."

    But my complaint concerned the 29 November 2000 agreement between Mrs GR and Mr EL that "the (DWP) process is warranted'.

    Mrs GR had not been into my classroom or looked at my program all year.

    How could she claim to have sudden "concerns" about my work?

    Mr EL had persuaded me to stay at the school on 2000.

    He had assured me he would deal with the problems at the school.

    He had been on leave all of Term 4 2000.

    How could he possibly have made such an agreement with Mrs GR?


    "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 regards to the use and management of adverse departmental records. ...

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


    I do not consider a vague letter sent out to all local principals to be a satisfactory response to the abuse that I experienced.

    My "official records" had been extensively and maliciously falsified to create an entirely false impression of what had been "going on" at Lynch-Mob State College.

    The falsified "records" concealed the abuse.

    Mrs GR and Mr EL needed to be clearly told that senior officers were aware that they had falsified my official records and abused the DWP and Grievance processes and that such abuse of classroom teachers was not acceptable.

    I consider that this ineffective response by senior officers to abuse encourages Queensland principals to abuse teachers.

    It demonstrates that senior Education Queensland officers will protect abusive principals.


    Mr Garland claims that there was-

    "Mediation / Local resolution"


    I find no evidence of any "mediation" or "local resolution".

    But on 23 August 2006, when Regan Nuemann, Director, Workforce Standards and Performance Unit, requested that the Regional Executive Director-

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


    This is a disgraceful response to evidence of systemic abuse.


    I believe that this documentation of abuse and of the systemic refusal to investigate abuse has substantiated all of of my allegations.


    9 December 2009

    Gary Long SC has been appointed as the Queensland Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commissioner.

    He replaces Alan MacSporran, who, we are now told, has been doing the job for the past five years. 

    Who knew that?

    Who knew anything about Alan MacSporran?

    What exactly has Alan MacSporran been doing for the past five years?

    When I complained to the PCMC about the  CMC / Education Queensland faux "investigation process", what exactly did Alan MacSporran do?

    Gary Long will assume the part-time position on January 10.

    PCMC chairman Paul Hoolihan, the member for Keppel, said Mr Long was unanimously supported by the bipartisan committee.

    The parliamentary commissioner is a focal figure in the review and oversight of the Crime and Misconduct Commission.

    He is charged with the responsibility of handling and investigating complaints against the alleged actions of the corruption watchdog and its officials.

    Now they tell us.

    They have been keeping this a big secret.

    Complaints are referred to the commissioner by the Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Committee.

    This is not exactly true, according to my understanding of the situation.

    The members of the PCMC do not actually read your complaints about the CMC.

    Their office staff send your PCMC - related letters directly to the PCMC office.

    And the PCMC office staff send your complaints about the CMC directly to the CMC.

    The PCMC allow the CMC to investigate themselves!

    Then, based on the CMC's self-investigation, the PCMC make their decision to do something about your complaint or to do nothing about your complaint.

    At every stage of the CMC / Education Queensland faux "investigation process" the public servants that you have complained about are allowed to investigate themselves.

    The Bligh Labor Government holds a 4-3 advantage in that PCMC committee room.

    But under the Crime and Misconduct Act, the decision to refer a matter onwards for investigation by the commissioner must be made on bipartisan terms, with at least one non-government member acquiescing.

    Wait a moment!

    What about a decision not to refer a matter onwards for investigation?

    If there are only 3 non-Labor members of the PCMC, that means that the 4 Labor members can block an investigation!

    Twenty-seven such complaints against the CMC or CMC officers were lodged in the 2008/09 financial year, according to the PCMC annual report released last month.

    But how many more complaints about the CMC did the PCMC refuse to send onwards for investigation?

    The principal legal officer of the commissioner's office, Mitchell Kunde, has been appointed acting commissioner until Mr Long commences the job on January 10.


    The nobodies who run the CMC and other such "authorities" are administering billions in public money.

    The actions of these nobodies are rarely scrutinised.

    They wield enormous power.

    Their decisions have a profound impact on our lives.

    Politicians want to shield themselves from unpopular decisions.

    So they appoint these nobodies.

    Unbridled power in Australia now rests in the hands of a few "commissions" and "authorities" that are almost totally unaccountable to the people.

    Many are overtly secretive and run by almost invisible men.

    Invisible men who respond to your complaints with letters full of mysteries and riddles.

    They put out obscure annual reports written in code.

    Millions are spent each year without proper accountability in Queensland because the work is outsourced to private investigation companies not subject to Freedom of Information searches.

    Politicians have outsourced decision-making.

    Accountability is avoided.

    Queensland politicians don't even need to have morals - they have out-sourced their own moral dilemmas by setting up an Integrity Commission.

    Retired High Court judge, Ian Callinan, QC, commented -

    "By the use of such authorities, (government) manages to deflect questioning and criticism to which it might otherwise be subjected."


    In other words, gutless politicians have handed over our democracy to faceless bureaucrats.


    Barrister Dr David Solomon led a 2008 review into the Queensland Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.


    Robert Needham, chairman of the CMC, made a submission to the review.

    He said that information concerning some CMC functions should not be available under FOI.

    Robert Needham said access to documents by third parties, particularly where allegations against a public official were not substantiated, "has the potential to cause serious damage to reputations and undermine public confidence in the CMC".


    The Bad Apple Bullies webmaster has no confidence in the CMC now, Mr Needham.

    Your CMC practice of allowing the people who are the subject of a complaint to investigate themselves - or to tightly control the investigation into their own conduct - is wide open to abuse.

    The Bad Apple Bullies webmaster also made a submission to the FOI review, Mr Needham.

    It can be found at-


    Former Coalition leader Lawrence Springborg once famously declared: "The CMC could not track a bleeding elephant through the snow."

    • Watching the watchdogs, Peter Cameron, The Bulletin, 07 October, 2006.


    "We have seen these internal investigations in the past. They're held, no result is ever known, no action is ever taken."

    • Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg, quoted in Child-rape inquiry "not good enough", Rosanne Barrett and Steven Wardill, P.2, The Courier-Mail 20/06/2006.


    • What sort of "crimes" do the Crime and Misconduct Commissioner actually investigate?

    Former corporate taxation officer Chris Murphy was investigated by the CMC in October 2002 in connection with a false travel claim for $98.

    Why did the CMC decide to investigate this allegation themselves?

    Chris Murphy's name was on a document tabled in Parliament in 2002 which suggested he may have disseminated some Government-sensitive information via his computer.

    Chris said that at 6:00 AM one day in October 2002, soon after the document was tabled, he heard a very loud thump on his door.

    It was a dawn raid.

    Three sergeants and a senior sergeant connected with the CMC went through his house searching for evidence of his crime.

    His computer records were taken.

    In November 2002 the CMC sent two officers to Melbourne to question his 80 year old mother.

    They also interviewed her neighbours.

    Chris pleaded guilty to the charge, was fined $300 and ordered to repay the $98.

    The magistrate was so unimpressed with the gravity of the offence that he did not record a conviction.

    • CMC risks trivialising its own role, Editorial, The Courier-Mail, 20 June 2003.
    • $98 chase costs thousands, Michael Madigan, The Courier-Mail, 20 June 2003.

    Why do the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission staff cut corners on investigations?

    • Because they are overworked and understaffed.
    • And they are bullied by senior officers.
    • and management consistently ignore bullying complaints.
    • and the CMC - and other Queensland law enforcement and criminal justice agencies - don't seem to be getting enough funding to do their job properly.
    • and because justice does not seem to be a high priority in Queensland.

    The 2007 Organisational Climate Survey - an independent report into the culture of the CMC - was completed in August 2007. 

    It was damning.

  • "We don't have enough staff ... and we are often required to rush or cut corners," a staff member said in the report.

    "(We are) way overloaded with work. .."

    "Senior staff intimidate staff on a regular basis."

    Staff retention is highlighted as a major problem, with one employee complaining that limited advancement opportunities were being hampered by questionable promotion decisions from management.

    One of the worst areas was Witness Protection and Operations Support, where the 43 staff recorded the lowest levels of job satisfaction while distress and workloads were highest.

    It must be pretty horrible to come to work every day and know that you are ruining the lives of decent people because you haven't got the time to do your job properly.

    And it is even more horrible for the decent Queenslanders who are having their lives ruined by questionable CMC decisions.

    The Crime and Misconduct Commission chairman Robert Needham's leadership team was slammed as being unable to inspire and poor role models.

    But staff said that Mr Needham was "fearless in pusuing corruption" and was unconcerned about the politics of his position.

    There was positive feedback for former commissioner Julie Cork, who quit last month.


    When the CMC was the CJC (Criminal Justice Commission), it had a statutory obligation of -

    'monitoring and reporting on the suitability, sufficiency and use of law enforcement resources


    the sufficiency of funding for law enforcement and criminal justice agencies


    the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Legal Aid Commission'.


    But in 2002, when the CJC became the CMC (Crime and Misconduct Commission), there was bit of swifty pulled in the legislative reshuffle, and that power was not passed on to the new CMC.

    So where did the review power move to in 2002?

    In 2002 the Act was amended and this research and monitoring function was moved from the CMC's responsibilities to the Premier's Department.

    The `independence' of any assessment - of the suitability, sufficiency and use of law enforcement resources and the sufficiency of funding for law enforcement and criminal justice agencies - should surely be seen as questionable, if not outright laughable.


    Andrew Boe, the Brisbane solicitor who successfully forced the CJC to pull its finger out in this regard in 1993 (courtesy of an Appeal Court judgement in his favour) is appalled at this situation.

    "I find it concerning that such an important responsibility was moved into the political wing of government. This must explain why funding shortcomings rarely reach the light of day," Mr Boe said.


    But now that the matter rests squarely with the Premier's Department, don't expect any relief soon.

    After all, it's only justice, it's not as though it is something really important, like a car race or the construction of a nice new footy stadium.


    Why do we have a Parliamentary Crime and Misconduct Commission Committee?

    In his 1989 report into corruption in Queensland, Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald said parliamentary committees must be a "vital and energetic part of giving effect to the democratic process, particularly in respect of complex issues".

  • Tony Fitzgerald said that parliamentary committees "would increase the chance that misconduct, incompetence or inefficiency will be exposed".


    "... Without information there can be no accountability.

    It follows that in an atmosphere of secrecy or indadequate information, corruption flourishes."


    After the serious corruption his commission exposed in Queensland, Tony Fitzgerald's recommendations were welcomed by both sides of politics.

    Now Queensland politicians pocket an extra $400,000 a year to sit on parliamentary committees that are doing next to nothing.

    Government decision-making and spending are not being scrutinised by cross-party committees as advocated by Tony Fitzgerald.

    Peter Beattie said that it was the responsibility of individual committee chairmen and women what they investigated, and that he would not like to interfere with their day-to-day running.

    Opposition Leader Jeff Seeney said that the parliamentary committees were "an absolute joke".

  • Clayton's committees a sad joke, Editorial, The Courier-Mail, February 18, 2007.

  • October 2009 : The Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) respond to Anna Bligh's "Integrity Review".

    It is interesting to read the conclusions that the CMC have drawn about corruption in the Queensland public service in October 2009 :

    1 October, 2009

    Recommendation # 4 - Ethics education

    The CMC recommends that ethics education programs include adequate attention to ... conflicts of interest which disadvantage or cause a detriment. ...

    Recommendation # 25 - Codes of Conduct

    The CMC recommends that all agencies seek to find ways to improve the working effectiveness of their codes, through training, regular updates, effective consultation and public commitment to ethical conduct.

    Recommendation # 26 - Role of the Public Service Commission

    The CMC recommends that the Public Service Commission take a more active role in the oversight of the conduct and actions of government agencies.


    The CMC seem to be lobbying for the Public Service Commission to take over responsibility for investigating Queensland public service corruption.



    ... when an official's actions and decisions are open to scrutiny, not only by their superiors, peers and official oversight agencies, but also by the media and the general public, ... opportunity is severely limited and the risk of detection rises.

    Accordingly, to minimise the risk of corruption, every strategy to increase the transparency of government should be explored and, wherever practicable, implemented without delay.

    The principle of transparency applies to all aspects of public administration, and relies upon :

    1. systems and processes which can be understood by the uninitiated
    2. communication in plain language and using the minimum of jargon and obscure expression
    3. ...
    4. independent, merit based and and evidence-based processes for making decisions
    5. publication of sound, fair and eqitable reasons for decisions which are made
    6. ...
    7. ...
    8. rigorous processes at all levels to ensure that and conflict of interest, pecuniary or non-pecuniary, is openly declared and appropriately managed.


    Prevention is undoubtedly better than cure. Effective management of misconduct and complaints alleging misconduct shows both employees and the community that such matters are dealt with honestly, fairly and openly.

    Openness about the way inappropriate conduct is addressed and managed can be an effective deterrent.

    The CMC's devolution strategy is a key change-maker.

    It is targeted towards an evolution of management attitude,

    I have seen no evidence of any such evolution of management attitude.

    "Devolution" - i.e. allowing Queensland Public Service Departments to investigate themselves -  does not seem to be working.


    ... and the changes to organisational culture which flow from it.

    Organisations come to appreciate that complaints, and even identified instances of misconduct, are learning experiences, opportunities to discover ways to do the job better.

    At the moment Education Queensland seem to be learning that they can delay an investigation for years and then produce a report full of absolute gibberish.

    And that the gibberish will be "accepted" by the CMC.


    Agencies are encouraged in the development and monitoring of processes which ensure that misconduct is effectively prevented.

    On the rare occasions that it does occur, the processes and monitoring are desgned to address the issues effectively, and to use each instance constructively for the ongoing improvement of the organisation.

    Can the CMC nominate one Queensland government department in which this golden dream has been achieved?


    An agency which cannot learn from the abuses which sometimes occur is an agency which cannot improve.

    So what exactly did Education Queensland learn from their abuse of me?

    "We can get away with it if we delay the investigation for years and then all tell the investigator that we can't remember what we did or why we did it?"


    Ethics education (Green Paper question # 4)

    A range of miscellaneous issues ... tend to slip from the forefront of consciousness in the ethical decision-making process ...

    1. In identifying possible conflicts of interest, there are a range of non-pecuniary interests which are of considerable relevance. Membership of community groups (eg. branches of certain political parties) ... social networks (family, friends, campaign managers, wives of workmates, fellow members or supporters of a particular political party) - all are susceptible to being perceived as influencing an official position or decision. Education about the perception of these non-pecuniary ties is important to ensure that appropriate conflict of interest declarations are made by officials.
    2. Conflict of interest is not limited to an opportunity to seek an advantage for oneself or others. It also includes opportunities to harm, disadvantage or cause a detriment to persons or organisations. Targets of disadvantage can (include people with) ... professional differences, personal disputes and political, professional, or cultural rivalries. It is important that all definitions and education programs include this aspect. ...


    Responsibility for dealing with complaints

    The CMC strongly opposes the suggestion that it takes sole responsibility for dealing with complaints, for two principal reasons-

    1. external complaint management will not lead to positive cultural or systemic change within the Queensland public sector.
    2. it would mean more than doubling the CMC's budget and operational capacity.

    Devolution is about strengthening public sector agencies integrity, accountability and misconduct resistance.

    In my experience "devolution" is about turning a blind eye to the corruption.

    It is about accepting gibberish "outcomes".

    It does not mean that the CMC ... will stop holding agencies accountable for the way in which they deal with complaints of misconduct.

    In my experience, the CMC does not "hold agencies accountable".

    The CMC accepts gibberish.

    The CMC will also continue to take a lead role in building the capacity of agencies to prevent and deal with misconduct.

    In my experience, the CMC have a very, very long way to go with this.

    Education Queensland, for example, seems to take no interest in preventing or dealing with misconduct.

    Misconduct / corruption/ professional negligence / incompetence / workplace abuse etc. seem to be systemic.

    This is the problem.

    So long as an agency relies upon the ever-present oversight agency to deal with complaints, it will be unable as an organisation to accept responsibility and embrace accountability in its own right.

    Poor performance and misconduct will continue to be perceived as the oversight body's problem, and standards will not improve.

    Only when an agency takes responsibility for its own culture of integrity, and extends that responsibility downwards from the senior management to line managers and individual employees, will it fully appreciate that ethical behaviour is integral to its operations.

    OK, we understand the theory.

    But do the CMC understand that it is not happening?

    Leaving public service Departments to investigate themselves is not working!

    Because the corruption / negligence / abuse is systemic.

    Managers must embrace complaints about misconduct as a positive learning opportunity, a tool for them to address any inappropriate conduct of an employee and any systemic issues, control failures, policy and procedural deficiencies, poor workplace culture and standards ...

    But, in my experience, they don't.

    Queensland public service Departments "lose" complaints and produce falsified "final outcomes" that are full of gibberish.

    How can Departments learn from complaints if the CMC accept their gibberish?



    ... in a New South Wales case ... the court awarded $664,270 in damages to a police officer on the grounds that his employer had breached its duty of care to the officer.

    In order to encourage public officers to disclose corruption and misconduct of which they become aware, it is necessary not only to promise protection and to take active steps to provide that protection, but also to ensure that there is an adequate system of compensation should that protection, for whatever reason, fail.


    Offence of misconduct in public office (Green Paper questions # 31, 32)

    Effective prevention and minimisation of misconduct depends in aprt on potential offenders knowing that there is a real and potent punishment in store for wrong-doers.

    ... there is no doubt at all that if there is no penalty for particular misconduct, many people would feel that there is no reason not to engage in it.


    Deliberate failure and wilful neglect.

    ... a man was violently assaulted by a number of men who beat and kicked him to death.

    (An Engish police) constable took no steps to intevene inthe assault and when it was over merely drove away. He was charged with the common law offence of misconduct in public office. Lord Widgery, in delivering the decision of the Court of Appeal, said :

    The allegation made was not of mere non-feasance but of deliberate failure and wilful neglect. This involves an element of culpability which is not restricted to corruption or dishonesty but which must be of such a degree that the misconduct impugned is calculated to injure the public interest so as to call for condemnation and ppunishment. ...

    A Queensland public servant was asked to "review" a teacher's complaint that she was being bullied. All but the first page of her complaint had been "lost". But a mass of falsified documents had been placed in  the teacher's official file to create the false impression that they had been discussed with her during the process of her Stage 1 Grievance. The public servant was instructed to base his "review" on the falsified "records" and not to "consider" the teacher's response to the falsified "records".

    So what should the "reviewer" do?



    While it is true that an apology does not fix a problem, experience shows that it is a powerful signal that the gravity of the issue is appreciated, and that the feelings of the aggrieved person are accorded proper respect. An apology undoubtedly provides satisfaction to many complainants ...

    ...complainants quickly (and justly) become resentful of a government culture which denies imperfection and will not genuinely engage with them.

    An apology is a good start, but if the Department really regret the error they should "put it right".

    For example, if an irrational and unjust decision to put a teacher into a punishment program has been placed on that teacher's official record - in breach of several Departmental policies - that teacher will have to declare that detrimental decision to all future employers.

    The unjust decision should be withdrawn.

    I understand that the actual document cannot be destroyed, but all copies of the document could be annotated to say that the decision has been withdrawn.

    Then the professional harm to the teacher would be minimised.


    Trade Unions and the QTU in particular.

    The CMC also notes that trade unions which have coverage over government employees do not generally have codes of conduct or other ethical frameworks which govern their actions or set standards for their behaviour or provide them with guidance when ethical dilemmas arise.

    While the members of these organisations are bound by the relevant agency Code of Conduct, paid officials of the unions are not.

    A considerable number of unions have members who are employed in the public sector and the conduct of those unions and the decisions made by them have a considerable impact on the conduct and behaviour of public officials.

    It is acknowleged that no power exists or should exist to enable the government to regulate the conduct or action of such bodies.

    However, it would be adventageous to the relationship between these bodies and the government and its agencies that the unions should voluntarily develop ethical frameworks.

    Voluntary codes or ethical frameworks could provide useful assistance and guidelines, especially in dealing with grievances, disputes and disciplinary matters where the interests of one member may be in conflict with the interests of another, or with the interests of the majority of members in the workplace or in general.

    In particular, guidelines are desirable to ensure that the union's duty to support and protect a member accused of misconduct should not lead it to sacrifice the interests of other members affected by the alleged misconduct.

    One of the interests commonly endangered in this way is the members' wish to be perceived by the public as honest and ethical.

    While support should certainly be provided to members as a right, partisan, energetic and vocal defence of members who are proven to be dishonets or unethical can severely damage the public perception of the ethical conduct of all members.


    Strengthening Codes (green paper questions # 2, 35)

    The CMC, in its regular dealings with agencies, has identified a general need for agencies to place a greater emphasis on training and education.

    Staff (and especially senior staff) need to be regularly reminded about their obligations.

    It is equally important that the agency be visibly committed to ethical conduct, and placing a high priority on Code updates and awareness is a crucial part of this.

    The CMC has recently received information that ministerial staff frequently avoid Code of Conduct training (which is provided to them by Ministerial Services).

    Given the key exposure of staff in these positions, coupled with the fact that they are frequently political rather than public service appointees, it is vital that Code of Conduct and ethical decision-making training be compulsory within a short time (no more than three months) of commencement, and that strong measures (suspension of salary, termination of contract) be in place to enforce this.

    Similar concerns are heard from time to time from other agencies, especially in regard to senior management and other high level staff, who often claim to be 'too busy' to attend.

    This sends a very poor message to less elevated staff about the ethical commitment and standards of management and of the organisation as a whole.

    All agencies are encouraged to put in place strict attendance requirements, as the effectiveness of codes of conduct is heavily dependent on the commitment of the agency's senior management.


    19 July 2011 : CMC chairman Martin Moynihan unsure why so many CMC senior officers have been sacked.

    The Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission is in turmoil from a mass exodus of senior staff - and no permanent replacements.

    The CMC has lost a combined 70 years of experience with six key staff, including a very senior misconduct director, either sacked or walking in recent months including:


    Peter Scanlan, Executive Director, terminated and escorted from the premises;

    Greg Rigby, Director of Information Management, retired early;

    Russell Pearce, Director of Misconduct Investigations, had his contract paid out, now employed as Deputy Director of the new Tasmanian Integrity Commission;

    Helen Couper, Director of Integrity Services, refused an extension of her contract;

    Margot Legoz, Director of Research, remains suspended on full pay since February 2010; and

    Sharon Loder, Assistant Director of Misconduct Investigations, resigned in June 2011, and now employed as Executive Director, Operations with ICAC in New South Wales.


    LNP Shadow Attorney-General Jarrod Bleije attempted to seek answers from CMC Chairman Martin Moynihan at the Estimates hearings at Parliament on 19 July 2011, particularly why Russell Pearce, Director of Misconduct Investigations, had his contract terminated.


    On question after question, Mr Moynihan was vague – mostly saying he couldn't recall or didn't have details or reasons for the dismissals and contract terminations of senior staff.

    Mr Bleijie said serious questions needed answering on how senior staff could be sacked - but at the same time issued with glowing references to help them apply for senior roles interstate.


    CMC chairman vague on sackings, Jarrod Bleijie, LNP, 19 July 2011 :


    Most of the material on this webpage is already in the public domain or was released to the editor under Freedom of Information (and so can be published).

    If you believe that your point of view has not been properly represented, please contact



    web statistics