Bad Apple Bullies

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

The Education Queensland "Internal Review Process".

What happens if Education Queensland tell you that they are going to have an "internal review" of your complaint?


  • Watch the wording that the Education Queensland officers use very carefully. An "Internal Review" is totally different from an  "External Investigation".


  • The Education Queensland official records - and the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission ( CMC ) official records - may describe what is going on as an "investigation", but it may actually only be an "Internal Review" by a junior Education Queensland employee.


  • No assurance that is given to you in any email has any value. The emails can simply be "lost". There will be no official record of the assurances that you have been given. Letters that are mailed to you will be put on the official records. But nothing that is written in them can be relied upon either.


  • An Education Queensland "Internal Review" seems to function as a delaying strategy. An "Internal Reviewer" is not allowed to ask questions. So a long, slow "Internal Review" gives the abusive administrators time to "forget" what they did and why they did it.


  • The "Internal Review" may be based on documents that the "Internal Reviewer" and everybody else knows are falsified "records" that were put secretly on your Education Queensland file in breach of many Education Queensland polices.


  • You may tell a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Education Queensland "Discrimination Solicitor" that your records have been extensively falsified. But he won't be the person chosen to do the "Internal Review". A junior employee of Education Queensland with no qualifications in education, law or psychology - but who identifies as Aboriginal - may be directed to conduct the "Internal Review".


You might consider that Education Queensland are abusing Aboriginal employees in using them to conduct such "Internal Reviews".


I discuss the abuse of Education Queensland Aboriginal employees in more detail at


  • You may never realise that the "Internal Reviewer" is an Aboriginal employee. If he writes to tell you that he identifies as Aboriginal, his emails to you may be blocked. And if his emails to you are eventually released to you under FOI, the FOI officers may cover over the words "I identify as an Aboriginal" on the grounds that it is personal information. Even though he is writing to you to tell you this personal information.


  • You may not be allowed to see most of the falsified documents till the "Internal Review" of the falsified documents is almost completed.


  • When you are finally given copies of the falsified documents they may be undated and unsigned scribbles on a jumble of scraps of paper and sticky-notes, so it will be very, very difficult for you to understand what was "going on" at your school and what was being alleged against you.


  • So, even when you are given the falsified "records", you still can't really understand and respond to the "allegations" that have been beaten up against you.


  • And if you do respond to what you think is being alleged in the falsified "records', your response may be "read but not considered" by the "Internal Reviewer". This "not considering" process means that he will ignore your protests that the documents that he is "reviewing" were concealed from you and have been falsified.


  • You will be instructed not to try to communicate with the "Internal Reviewer" - this person from an oral culture - but the Education Queensland officer whose behaviour you complained about may be allowed to regularly meet with the "Internal Reviewer".


  • He may, in fact, be appointed by the Director-General to "supervise" the "Internal Review" and to liaise with the CMC concerning the "Internal Review".


  • If you complain to CMC officers that this is not appropriate, the CMC officers will tell you that it is not their responsibility, it is the responsibility of the Director-General. And that the Director-General can do what he likes.



The real-life experiences on which these conclusions are based:


I have decided not to disclose the name of the Education Queensland "Internal Reviewer" at this stage.

This should not be interpreted as a suggestion that the Education Queensland "Internal Reviewer" was corrupt.


I had complained to the CMC that:

  • The Education Queensland Diminished Work Performance process and the Grievance process were being abused to drive Queensland classroom teachers into ill health and out of work.


  • Senior Education Queensland officers refused to do anything about the situation.


  • They simply instructed each other not to respond to letters complaining about workplace abuse.


Thursday 5 February 2004

Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, recorded:


"Rang CP (complainant - me) to advise of determination, however the number CP initially provided is the Lynch-Mob State College,

- the school that I used to work at and where usual principal Mr EL was still working -

(CP has not been there for 2 years)."



On February 5 2004 I had not been working at Lynch-Mob State College for a full three years. 

I never contacted Eve 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 on Thursday February 5 2004, two days before the Queensland state election?


Did Eve speak to Lynch-Mob State College usual principal Mr EL - one of the people whose behaviour I was complaining about - before the Freedom of Information (FOI) documents were released to me?


Did this compromise the FOI process?


Saturday 7 February 2004

Was the day of the Queensland State election. Labor were elected to govern Queensland again.


Wednesday 11 February 2004

During the week after the Queensland State election, the CMC handed Education Queensland all of the documents relating to my discrimination complaint.

I would presume that these are the documents in FOI 2606 File E

Documents 2606 E 230-232 are Matters Assessed 9M1-03-0035

This file contains my complaint about discrimination on the grounds of political belief, etc.

So Education Queensland officers had the opportunity to read my CMC discrimination complaint before they provided me with the FOI documents.


This seems to have compromised the FOI process.


Wednesday 18 February 2004


I emailed Anna Bligh.

I copied the email to -

  • Greg Combet,
  • The QTU,
  • Correspondence.EXECLEGL at Education Queensland,
  • Human Resources at Education Queensland
  • and Ken Smith 


"Dear Ms Bligh,

I understand that the CMC have sent my complaint to EQ for investigation.

Obviously this is a bit tricky as it is the behaviour of ... senior EQ officers that I am complaining about.

How do you intend dealing with this?

I am a bit tired of people investigating their own behaviour and finding themselves innocent. ..."


26 February 2004

Scott Smith, Departmental Liason Officer, Office of the Minister of Education wrote to me -


" ...The Minister for Education and Minister for the Arts, Anna Bligh MP, has asked me to respond to your letter (actually it was an email) of 18 February concerning workplace bullying.

The Minister acknowledges the points made in your letter, however she is not able to intervene in departmental staffing issues.

These issues fall under the responsibility of the Director-General of Education and the Arts, Mr Ken Smith.

The Minister has asked me to forward your letter to the Director-General for his information and direct reply.

The Minister thanks you for bringing this issue to her attention. ... "


23 March 2004

I had made a Freedom of Information (FOI) application for the documents that explained the "secret reason" why Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR, acting deputy principal Miss AL and usual principal EL had agreed, on 29 November 2000 that


"the (Diminished Workplace Performance [DWP]) process is warranted"

and that I would be on DWP in 2001.


Stephannie Kalas wrote to me, telling me of her "decision". 

Her letter and the documents that she had allowed me "access" to were mailed to me on 25 March 2004.


Friday 26 March 2004

11:12 AM: Stephannie's FOI 2421 "decision" had arrived.

I emailed David Turner:

" David, I notice that document (2421 F) 61 appears to be a falsification.

By this I mean that it was never given to me.

What should I do about falsified documents?

Who should I report this to? "

As the 2421 documents were gradually released to me after 26 March 2004, I began to realise that a mass of falsified documents had been secretly placed on my official record in breach of Natural Justice, the Public Service Regulations, the Education Queensland Code of Conduct and the Education Queensland DWP policy.

For details of how these 2421 documents had been falsified, please refer to: 


11:18 AM  I emailed the QTU -


" Hello QTU,

I have received a few FOI documents relating to the victimisation, discrimination, stalking, harassment, bullying, mobbing, etc. that I suffered at Lynch-Mob State College.

I can see right away that one document has been falsified.

By this I mean that it was never given to me  (Document )063 (should be 061).

What should I do about this sort of falsified evidence?

Who do I report it to?

I am a financial member of the QTU. ... "


I rang the office of my local member.


I rang the QTU and asked for advice.

What could I do about falsified evidence?

I explained that in the FOI documents I had found one falsified document and one letter from a parent that I was not told about.

I was advised to ring back on Monday 29 March and talk to Fiona MacNamara.


I rang Stephannie Kalas to ask the same question. I was told that Stephannie would ring back on Monday.


3:00 PM

I emailed Stephannie Kalas and copied the email to David Turner:

" Stephannie,

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 a 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?

Were you under the impression that I had been told about this letter? "


4:21 PM

An unnamed person from EXECLEGL tried to email a letter to me. 

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


8:47 PM

I replied to this email, as requested.

I was attacked by a backdoor subseven trojan horse - it came from computer 211 243 9 138 3586


The letter was from Neil Whittaker, Assistant Director-General, Shared Services, Office of the Director-General -

" ... The Minister for Education and the Arts, Anna Bligh MP asked the Director-General of Education and the Arts to reply to your email received on 19 February 2004.

The Director-General has asked me to respond to you on his behalf. ...

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

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


So the answer to my question that day to Stephannie Kalas and to the QTU -


"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 complaining that a mass of falsified documents had been secretly placed on my Education Queensland record.

And nobody was going to take responsibility for doing anything about the falsified documents.


Tuesday 30 March 2004


Ken Smith emailed me:

" ... I have been advised by the department's CMC liaison officer that the CMC has provided the department with details of your complaint against various departmental officers.

Copies of the folders you have provided have been delivered to the department by the CMC.

The information you have provided is being independently reviewed and the department will respond to the CMC in due course. ... "


  • Note the change - after I complained that several of the documents on my "record" were falsified, the investigation was down-graded to an "independent review".


  • And the review was "independent" in the sense that it was conducted by an Aboriginal employee of Education Queensland, under the direction of one of the senior Education Queensland officers that I had complained about.


  • This email to me from Ken Smith was then "lost".


  • So there was no official record of the down-grading of the "investigation" into a "review".


  • In October 2004, CMC officers still believed that my complaint was being externally investigated. When I told a CMC officer that there was no external investigation, and that an Education Queensland employee was conducting an "Internal Review" into my complaint, she became angry with me and did not believe me. I asked her to search for the officer's name on the Education Queensland website. Then she realised that it was true.


13 April, 2004

I wrote to the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" who was conducting the "Internal Review" of my FOI application, explaining that a huge number of the documents on my files must be falsified.

Most of the 63 documents in File F had been refused to me by Stephannie Kalas, the Education Queensland FOI Officer, on 23 March 2004 because -

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

Letter to me dated 23 March 2004

- but I protested that the documents had not been shown to me or discussed with me during usual principal EL's investigation into my Stage 1 Grievance about Mrs GR's abuse of the DWP.

The Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" obviously read my detailed letter with care and made notes on my comments.

He wrote "IR" on pages 2646-2648, the pages in which I discussed File F.

340/5/1295 documents 2640 - 2652, released to me for the first time after 12 June 2008.


  • So, soon after April 13 2004, the Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" would have also been aware that my official records had been extensively falsified.


22 April 2004

9:20 AM

The "internal Reviewer" emailed Keith Hynes.

"1. Yes,  I would like the url link for the CMC investigation guidelines.

2. (My name) - slow - need to set a delivery date - how about we have an update on 30 April with a view to me concluding the week after."


9:24 AM

Keith Hynes emailed the "Internal Reviewer" .


2. (My name) date is fine. "


So, at this stage the "Internal Reviewer" and Keith Hynes both seem to have considered that he was conducting an investigation, in the CMC sense.

And they expected that he would be finished by 7 May 2004.


12 July 2004

The Education Queensland Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained "Discrimination Solicitor" sent me the first FOI 2469 documents.

2469 File C The District Office began with a sticky-note:



Would you file this please.

This is the "lost" info from Employee Relations in CO.


District office Employee Mrs GN."


Documents 72 - 90 in 2469 File C are pages 11-29 of my August 31 2001 Stage 2 Grievance to the Director-General concerning the systemic abuse of the Education Queensland DWP and Grievance policies to bully Queensland teachers into ill health and out of work.

My two-page cover letter and the first ten pages of my Stage 2 Grievance are missing.

The documents before page 11 of my Grievance, documents 91 and 92 are handwritten notes:


"A) Interim response re bullying?


1) get back to her - what does she really want, & what are her expected outcomes?

  • process?
  • people?

2) Systemic approach good and bad things about DWP Process.

3) Investigating claims - role of School Ops??

  • awareness
  • expectations

4) District Performance Measurement officers.

5) District level

6) Statement re abuse of DWP - vexacious complaints.

7) Senior officers and Union people - what are problems with DWP.

8) Ch protects rights of ees

9) Hold Principal & DOS accountable for grievances - people must get natural justice.

ADG (School Ops)"


Which suggests that, at some time between 31 August 2001 and 12 July 2004, a senior Education Queensland officer, possibly the Assistant Director-General School Operations, knew that -


  • The DWP and the Grievance processes had been abused.


  • A vexacious complaint had been made concerning me.


  • Lynch-Mob State College usual principal EL principal had not conducted the Stage 1 Grievance investigation properly. He had not allowed me Natural Justice.


  • There was some problem with "Ch protects rights of ees" - could Lynch-Mob State College acting principal Mrs GR have "heard" or drummed-up a "confidential allegation" concerning me that "had to be" investigated by the CMC or some other Queensland government department? Was this "confidential allegation" hidden in another government department so that I could never find it, and never respond?


Which raises the Question-

  • If it was so obvious to the Assistant Director-General School Operations in 2001 that I had not been allowed Natural Justice, why did Education Queensland need to spend so many years slowly conducting an "Internal Review" and an "External Investigation"?


  • And why is Rachel Hunter still refusing to correct my official Education Queensland record in February 2009?


Thursday 29 July 2004

11:16 AM

I emailed the "Internal Reviewer":

"Subject: I would appreciate your assurance that you will be able to conduct an independent and impartial investigation.

Hello (name of "Internal Reviewer"),

You will have been told that I tried to contact you by phone a few times this morning.

I undersand that you are the independent investigator investigating my complaint about workplace bullying, etc.

I realised a couple of days ago that you are actually an EQ employee.

In what sense would you consider that you are able to be "independent".

If you wrote a report that was critical of the EQ grievance process or of EQ officers, do you think that you would be supported - or would you fear payback?

Who has told you that they will support you if you investigate impartially?

... I believed Ken Smith when he told me he had commissioned an independent investigation.

I would like to believe that he will support you if you investigate impartially and if you tell the truth about the situation. ...

(my name)

340/5/1295 document 2712-2713


Friday 30 July 2004

4:48 PM 

The "Internal Reviewer" emailed me:

"Good afternoon (my name).

I understand and appreciate the reason for your enquiries.

I referred your email to John Ryan for discussion on 29 instant.

We have not met yet.

Hope to do so on Monday.

best regards,

(Name of 'Internal Reviewer')"

340/5/1295 document 2712


Monday 2 August 2004

4:30 PM

I emailed the Internal Reviewer.

"Subject: Response to FOI Application 2469 J 180-182

Hello Mr (name of reviewer),

I have just finished a response to FOI application 2469 J 180-182.

2469 J 180-182 Briefing Note Minister of Education by District Officer Ms CHR dated 8 August 2003

This was an official report written by an earlier 'investigator'.

(My name.)"

340/5/1295 document 2711


District Officer Mrs CHR was the person who had written 

2469 J 180-182 Briefing Note Minister of Education dated 8 August 2003

Many decisions made by other Education Queensland officers seem to have been based on this Briefing Note, in which Ms CHR does not reveal -

  • that a mass of falsified documentation had been placed secretly on my file.
  • that she and several other members of The District Office had a conflict of interest in dealing with my complaint.

4:53 PM

the "Internal Reviewer" emailed me.

"Thank you (my name).


(name of "internal Reviewer")"

340/5/1295 document 2711


10 August 2004

John Ryan noted in his diary:

"Mat Woodforth (FOI) has (my name) file - call from District Office Employee Ms CHR."

340/5/1295 Document 5012 attached to letter to me from Education Queensland dated 9 January, 2009.

Mrs CHR was the person who had written the 

2469 J 180-182 Briefing Note Minister of Education dated 8 August 2003

that I had sent the "Internal Reviewer" a response to eight days earlier.

  • Did Mrs CHR and John Ryan discuss my response to her Briefing Note for the Minister?


Monday 16 August 2004

Eve Gardiner , CMC officer,  rang John Ryan about my "case".

340/5/1295 document 5452


Tuesday 17 August 2004

Eve Gardiner, CMC officer, and John Ryan discussed my complaint that my official records had been extensively falsified:

"told Eve would be finalised by 25/28 August 2004."

340/5/1295 document 5453

So, on 17 August 2004 Eve Gardiner believed that Education Queensland were investigating the falsification of my documents - which they were not - and that the investigation report would be ready in a week.

  • Actually the falsification of the documents has not been investigated to this date, 12 February, 2009.


2 September 2004

Eve Gardiner, CMC oficer, rang John Ryan again concerning my case.

She asked him for a status report.

340/5/1295 document 5454


7 September 2004

11:42 AM

The "Internal Reviewer" emailed John Ryan.


... I have decided to split the two CMC complaints and finalise the one alleging with  (sic) falsification of records until after I resume the week beginning 4 october.

I will provide you with a report on the other COB tomorrow.




The "Internal Reviewer" seems to have

"provided John Ryan with an incomplete, work-in-progress, copy of the my (sic) work to date on or around 8 September 2004 ..."

unsigned statutory declaration 340/5/1295 document 4687


19 October 2004

The "Internal Reviewer" seems to have overwritten the work-in-progress version of his "Internal Review" and emailed his report to John Ryan on 19 October 2004.

The report was dated 11 October 2004.

unsigned statutory declaration 340/5/1295 document 4687


Saturday 23 October 2004

1:33 PM

I emailed the "Internal Reviewer".

"Hello (name).

I thought I would like to clarify some points with you concerning your investigation.

I was asked not to contact you but as the people you are investigating are freely communicating with you and appear to be discussing your draft report with you, I suppose that I can communicate with you also."

I asked if he had received copies of various documents that I had written.

340/5/1295 document 5280


Monday 25 October 2004

5:07 PM

The "Internal Reviewer" emailed John Ryan.

Not me, John Ryan.

"Good afternoon (my name),

I feel I need to introduce myself. I identify as an Aboriginal ... I like to believe I am an honest and fair person.

I was asked to review all available documentation, including the below.

I was asked to review your allegations arising from the performance management and grievance processes, and not to undertake an investigation involving witness interviews,etc.

In terms of the "review" scope, I did not interview you or the people mentioned.

I assume the CMC agreed with this "scope".

... In terms of the review, I confirm that i have been responsible to John Ryan, in his capacity as Director, Workforce Standards and Performance.

I provided John with verbal updates on progress and he read a "work in progress" and draft report.

(Name), I assure you that John Ryan nor anyone else has influenced the content of my report.

I am my own person!'

This rather nice stylistic touch demonstrates that the "Internal Reviewer" has not been educated in the common mode.

He uses language in an interesting way.

But is the "Internal Reviewer" right when he claims that he is "his own person"?

Why is he did he send this letter to John Ryan instead of me?

The Director-General currently has my 'unsigned' report.

I generally don't sign reports until I have adequately proof read the report.

I will ascertain the processes for getting the report to you either via the Department or the CMC.

Take care (my name)

(His name).

340/5/1295 document 5280

All District Office and Head Office public servants appear to be charming and sincere, even when they are "turning a blind eye".

But this letter does seem to suggest a real sincerity.


  • But the letter was not sent to me.


  • It appeared on my official records several years later.


  • And note - on 17 March 2005 below, the "Internal Reviewer" knew that he had only sent me three emails and that this was not one of them.


Wednesday 27 October 2004

8:ll AM

The "Internal Reviewer" emailed me.

"Good morning (my name).

I have the documentation.

I note other matters you have raised over the last couple of days.

I believe you will receive a response.

best regards

(Name of Internal Reviewer)"

340/5/1295 document 2710

This was the third email that I received from the "Internal Reviewer" during the six months that he had been "reviewing" my complaint.

Note how short, impersonal and vague a response this emailed is to my questions.

Notice how different this email is in style from the letter.

As if the letter and the email were written by two different people.

If the letter is a genuine document, I can only presume that John Ryan had told the Aboriginal "Internal Reviewer" that he could not send me his letter.

And that John Ryan may, in fact, have written the email for the Aboriginal "Internal Reviwer" to send to me.


Wednesday 22 December 2004

"Subject: Discussion re (my name) (J Ryan, (name of Education Queensland "internal reviewer") and K Newman)

Location: J Ryan's Office

Start: Wed 22/12/2004 9:30AM

End: Wed 22/12/2004 10:30 AM

Required attendees: (name of Education Queensland "internal reviewer") ; NEWMAN, Kim"

The name of the person who sent this email released to me under FOI in 2703 File F Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 10 - number at centre of bottom of page - has been deleted.

The time that the email was sent has also been deleted.


Which seems to suggest that John Ryan, Kim Newman and (the Education Queensland "internal reviewer") met on 22 December 2004 to discuss my "case".

And that the meeeting took one hour.


The only record kept of that one-hour meeting seems to be:

"John and Kim 22/12/04

(Name of Education Queensland "internal reviewer") and megsa matrix."

 2703 File F Workforce Standards and Performance Unit document 20 - number at centre of bottom of page.

This document seems to be a photocopy of a page from a spiral notebook.

The document is written by hand.


Which has never seemed to make much sense.


A leaked Education Queensland risk matrix policy document tabled by the Opposition in State Parliament on Wednesday 3 December 2008 revealed the ranking system Queensland public servants should use when notifying bureaucrats of issues.

"Sustained adverse publicity" was ranked in the worst category of critical.


17 March 2005

5:15 PM the "Internal Reviewer" emailed the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity-trained Education Queensland "Discrimination Solicitor":

"(name of HREOC-trained Education Queensland "Discrimination Solicitor")

Number 3 e-mail.

...This is the extent of my emails to (my name)."

340/5/1295 document 2710

  • So - on 17 March 2005 the Education Queensland Aboriginal "Internal Reviewer" knew that he had only sent me three very brief emails during the year that he had been conducting the "Internal Review".


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 records
  • no action - bullying

EQ did a review ..."

"... 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 -

  • the Aboriginal  "Internal Reviewer" seems to have been given only the first page of my Stage 2 Grievance.
  • The next eight pages of my Grievance seem to have been totally "lost".

    The remaining 18 pages of my Grievance seem to have been jumbled into a different file ( documents 72-90 in 2469 File C ) in a different place - at the District Office. 


  • the documents in FOI 2606 File E - my main complaint to the CMC about discrimination on the grounds of political belief, etc - the documents that the CMC sent to Education Queensland for investigation - seem to have been entirely concealed from the "Internal Reviewer".


  • This Education Queensland "concealing, losing and jumbling" process would have made it very, very difficult for the "Internal Reviewer" to understand my complaint.


  • the "Internal Review" was based on a mass of falsified and re-falsified "records" that I knew nothing about.


  • these falsified and re-falsified "records" of real and imaginary conversations concerning me had been placed secretly on my Education Queensland files in breach of several Education Queensland policies.


  • these falsified "records" had been secretly placed in the Stage 1 Grievance Investigation File.
  • This created the false impression that these falsified "records" had been discussed with me during the Stage 1 Grievance process.


  • the "Internal Review" only began when it became clear that I was going to find these falsified "records" under Freedom Of Information ( FOI ).


  • the November 29 2000 agreement between Lynch-Mob State College acting principal GR and usual principal EL that "the (Diminished Workplace Performance ) process is warranted" must have been based on the contents of these falsified "records" .


  • many of the falsified and re-falsified "records" were not released to me till the "internal review" was well under way.


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


    "... 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?


    • Did Russell Pearce fully understand the nature of the Education Queensland "Internal Review" process?


    " ... 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.

    Wednesday 30 August 2006

    9:47 AM

    Matt Woodforth, Education Queensland FOI officer, emailed the "Internal Reviewer".

    "... with regards to the various versions that we have received I think you would be best speaking with Andrew Smith as he has been dealing with the issues concerning the various versions of the report. ..."

    340/5/1295 document 5354

    So, by 30 August 2006, there seem to have been various versions of the "Internal Review".

    And copies of these "various versions" were being held by Andrew Smith, an Education Queensland FOI officer.

    I have made FOI applications for these "various versions" of the "Internal Review".

    But to this date, 24 November 2009, I have only been allowed to read one copy of the "various versions" - the unsigned copy (that seems to be the copy) that was handed to the CMC.


    Who actually wrote the version of the "Internal Review" that was handed to the CMC?

    Could the person who wrote the "letter to me" dated 25 October 2004 really be the same person who wrote the "Internal Review"?

    To me the two documents do not seem to be written by the same author.

    Which would explain why the Aboriginal "Internal Reviewer" never signed the "Internal Review".