Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers

[2012] QCAT 138

CITATION: Monazeh v Queensland College of Teachers [2012] QCAT 138

PARTIES:	Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh
v
Queensland College of Teachers

APPLICATION NUMBER: OCR231-11

MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE: 24 February 2012

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member
R Oliver, Member

DELIVERED ON: 28 March 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE: The decision to not remove a Returning to Teaching condition from the registration of Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION – where registered teacher had not satisfied the requirements for recency of practice – where returning to teaching condition placed on teaching registration

Education (The Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005, ss 29(2), 29(3), 43(2) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 s 20

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh self-represented and appearing by telephone

RESPONDENT: Queensland College of Teachers appearing by Kylie Mercer, legal officer, in person

REASONS FOR DECISION

Issues for determination

1. Abbas Ali Rahimi Monazeh was registered as a teacher in Queensland on 19 February 2001.  With the commencement of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 in January 2006, new provisions about the registration of teachers came into force.  One such provision required conditions to be imposed when a teacher sought a renewal of registration when that teacher had taught for less than one year’s duration in the preceding five year period.[1]

   [1] Section 29 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.

2. At the end of 2010 Mr Monazeh sought to renew his registration.  In his application for renewal of full registration, Mr Monazeh revealed that he had not taught in Queensland schools or equivalent educational setting for the equivalent of one year (200 days or 1000 hours) in the previous five years.  

3. The Queensland College of Teachers determined that Mr Monazeh had not satisfied the minimum requirement for recency of practice[2], which is 200 teaching days over a five year period. The College imposed a Returning to Teaching (RTT) condition on his teacher’s registration in accordance with section 29(3) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.  Mr Monazeh applied to the College to remove the RTT condition and on 24 June 2011 a decision was made not to remove that condition from his registration.  An internal review of that decision was conducted in August 2011 and by letter dated 22 August 2011 the College informed Mr Monazeh that the review had confirmed the decision not to remove the RTT condition from his registration. 

   [2] Section 29(2)(c)(i) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.

4. Mr Monazeh seeks to review in QCAT the decision not to remove the RTT condition from his registration.  In the review before this tribunal Mr Monazeh does not contend that he had satisfied the recency of practice requirements.

5. In addition to the removal of the condition Mr Monazeh also asks the Tribunal to order:

   (a)  Compensation equivalent to one year of teaching salary.

   (b)  Any cost associated with professional development to be paid by the College.

   (c)  An apology for refusing to provide any notice of such letters or emails which the College claims to have sent to him.

Recency of practice

1. Under section 29(3) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 the College must impose an RTT condition on the registration of a teacher if that teacher has not met the recency of practice requirements.  It is not disputed that Mr Monazeh has not met the recency of practice requirement.  There is no discretion given to the College not to impose the RTT condition. 

2. The College can cancel the RTT condition on the grounds set out in the Act.  According to section 43(2), the College can cancel the condition only if it receives evidence of satisfactory completion of a professional development program that satisfies the RTT condition.    

3. Mr Monazeh does not dispute that he has not completed any professional development program required to satisfy the cancellation of the RTT condition.  The provisions in section 43(2) are clear: neither the College nor QCAT standing in its place has any power to cancel the RTT condition on Mr Monazeh’s registration when he has not met the statutory requirements for cancellation set out in section 43(2) of the Act.

4. The function of the Tribunal in a review proceeding is to come to the correct and preferable decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[3]  In reaching the correct and preferable decision, QCAT must apply the law that governs the matters in the review.  QCAT cannot cancel the RTT condition unless the statutory requirements for cancellation in section 43(2) have been met.  As those requirements have not been met, QCAT must confirm the decision made by the College not to remove the RTT condition. 

   [3] Section 22 of the QCAT Act.

Allegations made by Mr Monazeh

[10]Mr Monazeh nevertheless submitted that QCAT should cancel the RTT condition.  He contended that the first notice he had received about the recency of practice requirement was in a letter received on 2 September 2010 from the College setting out the renewal process prior to the lapse of his registration on 31 December 2010.  

1. Mr Monazeh submitted that he had not prior to that date deliberately ignored the recency of practice requirements but simply that he had not been informed about those requirements.  He submitted that the College had had a duty to inform him of the requirements and to ensure that any such requirements which affected his employment as a teacher were communicated to him.   

2. The College submitted that information about the recency of practice requirement had been communicated extensively to registered teachers from 2006.  The College had sent bulk emails to all registered teachers on its database, additional printed material in newsletters had been sent by post to each registered teacher on its database in May 2006, September 2008 and April 2009, public information sessions were held and information was placed on its website.  

3. Mr Monazeh contends that he did not receive any emails or printed material from the College to inform him of the recency of practice requirements prior to September 2010.  Mr Monazeh gave evidence that his residential address had not changed in the five year period before September 2010.

4. The annual registration certificate, on the reverse side, reminds all teaches of the importance of maintaining up to date contact details with the College.  This information is also on the College’s website.  Mr Monazeh gave evidence that he had a computer and that he was aware of the advice on the back of the certificate, although he said the information was not specific enough.

5. After considering all of the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds 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.

1. The submissions made by Mr Monazeh that he had not received any of these communications are not credible.  Mr Monazeh contended that he did not receive the newsletters sent by the College but he had received his annual teacher registration fee notices.  All these documents had been sent to the same address.  It is quite conceivable that he did not read all the communications sent to him and therefore failed to appreciate that they contained important information that would affect his employment as a teacher. 

Conclusion

1. The Tribunal is not prepared to remove the RTT condition from his teacher registration based on the submissions made by Mr Monazeh that placing the condition on his registration was unfair.  His submissions are not accepted but in any event, QCAT in exercising its review jurisdiction has no power to remove the RTT condition on such a basis.   It can only make the correct and preferable decision after applying the relevant law in a merits review process.  The other relief sought by Mr Monazeh is beyond the powers of QCAT to provide to him. 

1. The Tribunal finds that the RTT condition placed on Mr Monazeh’s teacher registration cannot be removed until such time as Mr Monazeh satisfactorily completes the professional development program required to satisfy the condition.

1. The decision of the College is confirmed.