Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers
[2017] QCAT 365
•24 October 2017
CITATION: | Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2017] QCAT 365 |
PARTIES: | Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh |
| v | |
| Queensland College of Teachers (Respondent) | |
APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR050-17 |
MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
HEARING DATE: | 29 September 2017 |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
DECISION OF: | Member McLennan |
DELIVERED ON: | 24 October 2017 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The decision of the Queensland College of Teachers to refuse to renew Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh’s teacher registration is confirmed. |
CATCHWORDS: | EDUCATION – TRAINING AND REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS – renewal of teacher registration – non-compliance with recency of practice condition – continuing professional development requirement – issue estoppel Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 26, s 29(2), s 29(3), s 30, s 32(2), s 43(2), s 215 Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 The Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353 |
APPEARANCES: | |
APPLICANT: | Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh, self-represented |
RESPONDENT: | Queensland College of Teachers represented by Carson Lloyd, Principal Legal Officer |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh (Mr Monazeh) was registered as a teacher in Queensland on 19 February 2001.
In January 2006 the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (E(QCT) Act) commenced. The E(QCT) Act established the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) and conferred functions on the QCT about the registration of teachers in Queensland. In particular the E(QCT) Act established the full period of teacher registration as five years from the day the QCT grants the registration.[1]
[1]E(QCT) Act, s 26.
The E(QCT) Act instituted certain professional requirements for teachers throughout Queensland. Where the QCT has established that the teacher who applies for renewal of teacher registration is suitable to teach[2] but has not taught for the duration or period prescribed by regulation made under the E(QCT) Act,[3] the QCT cannot be satisfied that the teacher has met the required recency of practice.[4] In this case, the E(QCT) Act requires the QCT to renew the person’s registration subject to a returning to teaching (RTT) condition.[5]
[2]E(QCT) Act, s 29(2)(a).
[3]E(QCT) Act, s 29(2)(c) as amended by Child Care and Another Act Amendment Act 2010 (Act No.4 of 2010).
[4]E(QCT) Act, s 29(3) repealed by Education and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Act No.46 of 2016).
[5]E(QCT) Act, s 29(3) repealed by Education and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016 (Act No.46 of 2016).
At the end of 2010 Mr Monazeh had sought to renew his teacher registration but the QCT determined that he did not meet the recency of practice which, at that time, was 200 teaching days over a five year period.[6] The QCT imposed the RTT condition on his renewal and, after internal review of that decision, on 22 August 2011 notified Mr Monazeh of the decision that the RTT would not be removed.[7] Mr Monazeh had applied to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) for review of that decision.
[6]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [3].
[7]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [3].
Mr Monazeh was unable to demonstrate to the Tribunal that he had completed any professional development program, completion of which would cancel the RTT condition and enable unconditional full teacher registration.[8] On 28 March 2012 the Tribunal confirmed the QCT decision not to remove the RTT condition from Mr Monazeh’s registration.
[8]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [7] – [8].
New application
On 31 December 2015 the QCT received an application dated 16 December 2015 submitted by Mr Monazeh for renewal of his teacher registration. Mr Monazeh declared in the application that he had taught for at least 100 days in the past five years.[9] He also declared that he had completed a RTT program in the past five years.[10] Other declarations included “I have to cover up my Islamic info because of racisim”; the town of birth was Auckland (Tehran); country of birth New Zealand (Iran); the reason he had not met the continuing professional development requirements “Racist and pigheaded managers of QCT in clusion (sic) with QCAT took away my ordinary registration and changed it to RTT. It was done because I am a moslem and they didn’t like it.”[11]
[9]QCT file Renewal Application Form section 2 Recency of practice page 3.
[10]QCT file Returning to Teaching Declaration Form Part B page 4.
[11]QCT file Renewal Application Form pages 2 – 3.
In a letter dated 7 June 2016, QCT Registration advised Mr Monazeh that it had checked a number of declarations Mr Monazeh had made on his application.[12] Of particular relevance were the declarations that he had taught in a Queensland school for 100 days or more in the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2015 and that he had completed a RTT program in the past five years.
[12]QCT file pages 55 – 57.
The enquiries that the QCT made of the Department of Education and Training disclosed that Mr Monazeh had undertaken short term contracts during the relevant period 2011-2015 and the period of teaching amounted to 100 hours or 20 days teaching.[13] There was no evidence provided of completion of a RTT program or of any statement of service of teaching completed with another employer.
[13]QCT file page 52.
The letter noted that in an email dated 30 March 2016 to the Director QCT, Mr Monazeh had rejected the RTT as illegal, as “violation” by the QCT and included the statement: “If the meaning of the course is having it done by your ‘approved’ providers, then I have not done that and will never do because I intend to take the matter to court again . . . “[14]
[14]QCT file page 56.
The QCT Registration letter dated 7 June 2016 provided Mr Monazeh the opportunity to address the discrepancies that were contained in his application for renewal and to provide evidence of satisfactory completion of a RTT professional development program. The letter included a copy of Mr Monazeh’s application for renewal and requested he comment on his application by 30 June 2016.[15] The letter advised: “If you do not provide this information the QCT may refuse your application for renewal. You remain a teacher with ‘Full continued’ registration until the QCT makes a decision on your application for renewal.”[16]
[15]QCT file email dated 10 October 2016 from Executive Manager Registration to Mr Monazeh page 120.
[16]QCT file pages 56 – 57.
Mr Monazeh did not respond to this request or provide evidence. On 2 September 2016 the QCT Registration Committee considered Mr Monazeh’s application and any relevant information.
In a notification dated 30 September 2016, the Board of the QCT refused Mr Monazeh’s application for renewal of registration.[17] This notification set out the legal requirements for RTT and renewal of teaching registration. It took into account email correspondence and telephone contact made by Mr Monazeh with the QCT in the period between 30 March 2016 and 8 June 2016. It was noted that Mr Monazeh had not provided reliable information in his application for renewal and the QCT determined he had made false declarations in his application.[18] The letter advised that registration as a teacher is a prerequisite for employment in teaching duties in State or non-State schools in Queensland.
[17]QCT file page 103.
[18]Notice under s 32(2) E(QCT) Act 2005 Dated 30 September 2016 QCT file pages 103-106.
In an email dated 1 October 2016 to the Board of the QCT Mr Monazeh disclaimed his application for renewal “as a joke at a party”. This was received after notification of the decision to refuse renewal of his registration.
On 19 December 2016 the Internal Review Committee (IRC) of the QCT conducted a formal review of the 30 September 2016 decision, including oral submissions from Mr Monazeh. Mr Monazeh’s evidence before the IRC included:
a)his assertion that he had never received communications from QCT about registration renewal requirements;[19]
b)that he had made enquiries about RTT programs but given the cost involved, he had decided not to complete one.[20]
[19]QCT file page 154.
[20]QCT file page 154 paragraph (iv).
The IRC noted that the imposition of the RTT condition on Mr Monazeh’s registration in 2010 had been the subject of previous review internally and by the Tribunal[21] and consideration of that matter was beyond the scope of the new application for review.
[21]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138.
Mr Monazeh indicated his reservations about continuing professional development requirements: he would have to determine for himself whether such a course would be beneficial to him. He indicated that if the QCT registered him on condition he complete a particular professional development course or teach certain hours, he would not comply.[22]
[22]QCT file page 154.
The IRC confirmed that the matter for consideration was the QCT’s decision to refuse Mr Monazeh’s application to renew his full registration for non-compliance with the RTT condition on that registration. The IRC confirmed the original decision to refuse the application for five year renewal of teacher registration.[23]
[23]19 December 2016.
On 20 January 2017 the Board of the QCT notified Mr Monazeh that it confirmed the original decision dated 30 September 2016[24] to refuse his application for renewal of full registration for non-compliance with the RTT condition on that registration.
[24]QCT file page 159.
This notification dated 30 September 2016 constituted a reviewable decision.[25]
[25]E(QCT) Act 200, s 215.
Application for review in Tribunal
In an application signed on 18 February 2017 and received in the Tribunal on 20 February 2017, Mr Monazeh applied to the Tribunal for review of the QCT decision made on 20 January 2017 refusing to renew Mr Monazeh’s teacher registration.
This review by the Tribunal is a fresh hearing on the merits of the case before it.[26] The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision.[27] Section 24 of the QCAT Act provides that the Tribunal in a proceeding for a review of a reviewable decision, may:
(a) confirm or amend the decision; or
(b) set aside the decision and substitute its own decision; or
(c) set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.
[26]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 20(2).
[27]QCAT Act, s 20(1).
Mr Monazeh is an unregistered teacher.
In his application to the Tribunal Mr Monazeh stated that the requirement for a minimum number of teaching days (200 days) is not in the E(QCT) Act and knowledge of the requirement was not conveyed to him. Included in his claims, he wants the Tribunal to order his registration as a teacher and to compensate him for the period of time during which the RTT has been imposed.
At the commencement of the hearing Mr Monazeh briefly set out his background in Iran, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. His qualifications included a Master’s degree and teaching diploma. He stated that he enjoyed teaching and that he had a lot to offer Middle Eastern children in high schools since he understood their difficulties. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Monazeh is well qualified and it is likely that he is a dedicated teacher.
Mr Monazeh told the Tribunal that his registration was renewed in 2006 however he did not meet the required minimum of 200 days within the five year period 2006 - 2011. He stressed that he did not know he was supposed to have 200 days minimum teaching but stated that he had approximately 185 days. He said that the required 200 days is not in the E(QCT) Act 2005.
Mr Monazeh in his email correspondence with the QCT, in oral submissions to the IRC and in the Tribunal hearing has made consistent complaint about not receiving information by email or post about the requirement for 200 hours in the five year registration period.
This complaint was dealt with in the earlier 2012 Tribunal hearing but based on the evidence before it, that Tribunal did not find Mr Monazeh’s claims were credible.[28] The Tribunal found that:
…the College took adequate and appropriate steps to inform registered teachers of the commencement of the recency of practice requirements for teachers. Information about recency of practice was sent to all registered teachers by email and by mail on at least four occasions between 2006 and 2010. In addition information was placed on its website.[29]
[28]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [13] – [16].
[29]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [15].
In the present review, Mr Lloyd submitted that information about requirements for renewal of teacher registration was sent to all teachers throughout Queensland whether they were full time, part time, relief, supply or provisional teachers. With over 100,000 teachers in Queensland there is reliance both on automated emails as well as post and website for communication between the QCT and teachers. Mr Monazeh had given evidence that his email and postal address had not changed in the five year period relevant to the first hearing.[30] Similarly there was no evidence before the present Tribunal of any different situation nor did Mr Monazeh assert otherwise. Rather as Mr Lloyd submitted, the evidence of receipt of information from QCT was supported by Mr Monazeh’s response to renewal for registration.
[30]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [13].
Mr Lloyd directed the Tribunal to the Renewal Guide with its detailed advice to teachers about required recency of practice and continuing professional development.[31] The Tribunal notes the statement:
As a registered teacher you are responsible for maintaining your registration and meeting requirements for renewal of registration.[32]
[31]QCT file pages 58 – 76.
[32]QCT file page 61.
The Tribunal accepts that the QCT had taken all reasonable steps to advise Mr Monazeh of renewal of his teacher registration requirements. The Tribunal finds no credible evidence that Mr Monazeh did not receive notification about the requirements for renewal of his teacher registration.
Mr Monazeh told the Tribunal that the RTT condition on his registration deterred schools from employing him as schools did not know what RTT meant and considered it meant something bad.
It is clear in Mr Monazeh’s written submissions to the Tribunal,[33] throughout his email exchanges with the QCT and from his statements during the hearing that he considers himself victimised by the QCT. He appears to consider that the QCT is singling him out for an unreasonable condition on his registration and failing to acknowledge his qualifications and suitability for teaching.
[33]31 May 2017.
There is evidence that the IRC discussed with Mr Monazeh the recency of practice requirements, the RTT condition and the current ways of satisfying the RTT condition. Mr Monazeh doubted the reasonableness of the requirements.[34]
[34]QCT file page 154.
Mr Lloyd in his submissions to the Tribunal compared the requirement for continuing professional development amongst other professions such as solicitors and accountants to similar requirements for the teaching profession. The Tribunal accepts Mr Lloyd’s submission because it is a fact of professional life, whether it involves solicitors, accountants or, in this case, teachers: there are requirements for continuing professional development that must be undertaken if registration in these professions is to be maintained.
Mr Monazeh referred to his “fake” application dated 31 December 2015 and which contained false statements. The Tribunal notes that Mr Monazeh had been given an opportunity to clarify this application[35] but had not responded. The Tribunal accepts Mr Lloyd’s submission that there is nothing to suggest it is not a genuine application. He also stated that in any case, Mr Monazeh is free to re-apply at any time.
[35]Paragraph 10 above.
It was evident in the course of the hearing that Mr Monazeh is strongly aggrieved by the QCT decisions. He remains affronted by the RTT condition that was placed on his registration and by the non-renewal of his registration presently under review by the Tribunal.
The evidence supports the view that Mr Monazeh stubbornly refuses to comply with registration requirements because he considers that he is already sufficiently qualified and that he has a choice in whether he should comply with registration requirements. He does not recognise the lawfulness of the requirements. He refuses to accept that the QCT is the authority established by law to regulate all teacher registrations in Queensland.
The E(QCT) Act and the subordinate regulations[36] made under that Act bind the QCT and all teachers under its jurisdiction in Queensland. Section 29 of the E(QCT) Act as amended provides:
[36]Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation 2016.
29 Requirements for renewal—full registration
(1) This section applies in relation to a person who applies for renewal of full registration under section 28.
(2) The college may renew the person’s registration if the college is reasonably satisfied—
(a) the person is suitable to teach; and
(b) each condition of the person’s registration (if any)—
(i) has been fulfilled; or
(ii) is being complied with at the time the college considers the application for renewal; and
(c) the person—
(i) has practised as a teacher, whether or not on a full-time basis, for a period that is—
(A) of at least the duration prescribed under a regulation; and
(B) within the period prescribed under a regulation; or
(ii) has attained experience the college recognises is the equivalent of teaching at a school for a period that is—
(A)of at least the duration prescribed under a regulation; and
(B) within the period prescribed under a regulation; and
(d) the person has undertaken, during the relevant period of registration, the continuing professional development required for registered teachers under the CPD framework.
The QCT is required by law to be satisfied that a teacher seeking to renew registration[37] is suitable to teach, has practised as a teacher for at least the duration prescribed by regulation made under the E(QCT) Act[38] and within the period prescribed by regulation made under the E(QCT) Act.[39] This means that within the prescribed period of registration, the teacher seeking renewal of teaching registration must have taught for a duration of six months, interpreted by the QCT as 100 days.
[37]E(QCT) Act, s 29.
[38]Prescribed duration is 6 months: regulation 11 as amended Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation 2016 commenced 1 January 2016.
[39]Prescribed period is 5 years: regulation 11 as amended Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation 2016.
Regulation 11 Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation 2016 was amended from the period 1 year (Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Regulation 2005) to the period of 6 months (Education and Training Legislation Amendment Regulation (No.1) 2012.
Under the E(QCT) Act the QCT is required by law to develop a framework (a CPD framework) for the continuing professional development of registered teachers; to give notice to all registered teachers about the requirement for renewing full registration about the type of continuing professional development required and the minimum continuing professional development a registered teacher must undertake.
The QCT is required by law to ensure that the person seeking renewal has undertaken, during the relevant period of registration, the continuing professional development required for registered teachers under the continuing professional development (CPD) framework.[40]
[40]E(QCT) Act, s 29(2)(d).
These requirements mean that for any teacher in Queensland to renew registration, that teacher, no matter how well qualified, no matter how experienced, has to practise as a teacher currently at a minimum for the duration (six months) and within the period (five years). The teacher must engage in the relevant continuing professional development required for registered teachers under the CPD framework.
The Tribunal finds that in order to renew his teacher registration, Mr Monazeh must comply with the requirements set out in the E(QCT) Act.
The decision of the QCT is confirmed.
Other matters - Issue Estoppel
The QCT submits that the legal doctrine of issue estoppel arises in this matter before the Tribunal. It submitted that Mr Monazeh was unable to raise again the RTT condition imposed on his registration. He was not able to raise again the complaint that he had failed to receive appropriate notification of registration renewal requirements because this was the issue determined by the Tribunal in 2012.[41]
[41]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138.
The doctrine of issue estoppel “prevents the raising again of an issue of fact or law already decided as between the same parties by earlier judgment.”[42]
[42]QCT submissions dated 13 October 2017 paragraph 4.
In the present matter, the parties are the same as those before the Tribunal in 2012.[43]
A judicial determination directly involving an issue of fact or of law disposes once for all of the issue, so that it cannot afterwards be raised between the same parties or their privies. The estoppel covers only those matters which the prior judgment, decree or order necessarily established as the legal foundation or justification of its conclusion . . .[44]
[43]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138.
[44]Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464, 531 per Dixon J.
The Tribunal found that Mr Monazeh’s assertions that he had failed to receive QCT notifications were not credible.[45] The Tribunal found that the QCT had taken all adequate processes to notify teachers of requirements to maintain recency of practice during the relevant registration period[46] and confirmed that the RTT condition was to remain on his registration.
[45]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [16].
[46]Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138, [15].
The QCT submits that Mr Monazeh has sought a review of the QCT refusal to renew his registration. The refusal was based on his non-compliance with the RTT condition imposed in 2011. Part of Mr Monazeh;s submissions for review is his claim that QCT failed to notify him of the recency of practice requirements that led to the RTT. QCT submits that Mr Monazeh is seeking to relitigate the lawfulness of the imposition of the RTT condition.[47]
[47]QCT submissions dated 13 October 2017, [18].
In Kuligowski v Metrobus[48] the High Court cited as uncontroversial the elements of issue estoppel:
(1) that the same question has been decided;
(2) that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and,
(3) that the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised . . .[49]
[48][2004] HCA 34.
[49][2004] HCA 34, [21].
The Tribunal is satisfied that issue estoppel applies in this present Tribunal:
The doctrine of estoppel extends to the decision of any tribunal which has jurisdiction to decide finally a question arising between parties, even if it is not called a court, and its jurisdiction is derived from statute or from the submission of parties, and it only has temporary authority to decide a matter ad hoc.[50]
[50][2004] HCA 34, 22 citing The Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea v Daera Guba (1973) 130 CLR 353, 453 per Gibbs J.
The Tribunal accepts the submissions of the QCT. It finds that Mr Monazeh is prevented from re-raising these same issues of purported lack of notification and the lawful imposition of the RTT condition in the current review application by reason of issue estoppel.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the determination of the earlier Tribunal covered these issues; that the parties were the same and that the decision of that Tribunal on these issues was final.
Inappropriate email
A continuing grievance of Mr Monazeh is a particular email. On 22 March 2016 Mr Monazeh received what the QCT described as an automated no reply email sent in error from the QCT generated email. The wording where relevant is:
Dear Abbas-Ali Rahimi Monazeh,
Provisionally Registered Teacher: Glen Evil Testing . . .
This automated email is being sent to you . . .
Mr Monazeh was offended by the “Glen Evil Testing” in this email. On 29 March 2016 he wrote to the Director of QCT Mr Ryan and expressed his concern. Mr Ryan explained the error as an automated email by an employee who was testing a system, apologised to Mr Monazeh and informed him that the employee responsible for sending this email had been counselled. Mr Monazeh was dissatisfied and rejected the apology, a position he still maintains despite subsequent apologies.[51] In a series of emails from then; in his written submission to the Tribunal and in the course of the hearing, he expressed increasingly intemperate language about both this inappropriate email, his frustration with and distrust of the QCT and what he perceives it to have done to him.
[51]Written submissions to Tribunal dated 31 May 2017.
Mr Lloyd acknowledged in the hearing that the language in the automated email had been an unfortunate mistake.
Other than noting that it was an unfortunate administration error caused by an employee who was careless; that it caused offence to Mr Monazeh; that apologies have been offered along with explanations for its occurrence, it is not a matter that is of relevance in the hearing before the Tribunal.
Departure from hearing
The Tribunal notes for completion that approximately 30 minutes before the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Monazeh made a lengthy interruption during Mr Lloyd’s submissions on behalf of the QCT and threatened to remove himself from the hearing. He objected to the submissions as a repetition of the QCT explanations for the RTT condition and non-renewal of his registration. He included in his interjection the email which offended him and the way he perceived himself to have been treated by the QCT. He expressed the view that he must be the only teacher to be so victimised by the QCT before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal explained to Mr Monazeh that he was free to absent himself at any time but that the Tribunal was obliged to hear from both parties before it; that respectful communication was important in the hearing and that to leave would not prevent the Tribunal from continuing with the hearing. The record will reflect the interchange. The Tribunal offered a temporary adjournment while Mr Monazeh composed himself but this was rejected. Mr Monazeh elected to remain for approximately a further 10 minutes but again became angry with the QCT submissions, interjected with his objections and left the hearing room.
The hearing concluded in approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
0
5
5