Queensland College of Teachers v SKR
[2025] QCAT 448
•10 November 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Queensland College of Teachers v SKR [2025] QCAT 448
PARTIES:
QUEENSLAND COLLEGE OF TEACHERS (applicant)
v
SKR (respondent)
APPLICATION NO:
OCR272-24
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
10 November 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Kate Chapple, presiding
Member Noel JensenMember Robyn Oliver
ORDERS:
1. The ground for disciplinary action under section 92(1)(h) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is established.
2. Pursuant to section 161(2)(a) of the Act, take no further action in relation to the matter.
3. Pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), other than to the parties to this proceeding, and until further order of the Tribunal, publication is prohibited of any information or thing that may identify SKR, a relevant student or former student, complainant, child, school, or sporting club other than to the extent necessary to enable the Queensland College of Teachers to meet its statutory obligations. SKR may provide a copy of this decision and reasons for decision to any regulatory authority or employer in compliance with disclosure requirements.
4. The respondent shall be anonymised in this decision and reasons for decision as ‘SKR’.
CATCHWORDS:
TEACHER DISCIPLINARY MATTER – where a young, inexperienced teacher engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexualised electronic communications separately with two secondary school students – where the teacher tried repeatedly to meet up with one of the students – where there was no physical contact between the teacher and students – where teacher not employed at schools students attended where the teacher acknowledged the conduct, cooperated in the disciplinary process and expressed remorse – where teacher voluntarily surrendered his registration – where time elapsed since suspension exceeds appropriate prohibition period
TRIBUNAL POWER TO MAKE NOTATION ORDER – where teacher a former approved teacher – where dissenting view among 3-member panel
NON-PUBLICATION ORDER – where no public interest to identify the names of the teacher, students, school or sporting club
Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 49, s 50(5), s 56, s 92(1), s 111A, s 115, ss 130-168, s 158(2), s 160(2), s 161(2), s 288, s 289, Schedule 3
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 13
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld), s 32, s 66
Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89
Health Ombudsman v Shermer (No 2) [2019] QCAT 54
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694
Queensland College of Teachers v EKR [2023] QCAT 136
Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241
Queensland College of Teachers v KDH [2024] QCAT 501
Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152
Queensland College of Teachers v REC [2020] QCAT 178
Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QKE [2013] QCAT 548Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
The respondent, SKR (‘the Teacher’) was granted teacher registration with the applicant, the Queensland College of Teachers (‘the QCT’) on 6 December 2017. He was first employed from early 2018 as a teacher at a state high school in a rural town in south east Queensland, and from July 2021, at a state secondary college in inner-city Brisbane.
On 1 September 2023, the QCT suspended the Teacher’s registration pursuant to section 49 of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld) (‘the Act’) and, in accordance with section 50(5) of the Act, subsequently referred the continuation of the suspension to the Tribunal for review. On 24 October 2023, the Tribunal made orders continuing the suspension of the Teacher’s registration and prohibiting the publication of any information that may identify the Teacher, any relevant complainant or child, or any relevant school other than in limited prescribed circumstances.
The Teacher surrendered his registration and was removed from the register of teachers on 22 January 2024.
On 31 May 2024, the Professional Capacity and Teacher Conduct Committee of the QCT (‘the PC&TC Committee’) decided pursuant to section 115 of the Act to refer the matter to the Tribunal for disciplinary action.
On 15 November 2024, the QCT filed a Form 22 Referral – disciplinary proceeding in the Tribunal together with a Part C Attachment annexing an affidavit of Pamela Mary Skirving sworn on 14 November 2024 asserting (inter alia) that the QCT had formed a reasonable belief that grounds for disciplinary action exist against the Teacher pursuant to section 92(1)(h) of the Act and particularising those grounds (‘the Referral’).
In 2021 and 2022, the Teacher was a coach at a football club north of Brisbane. During that time, Student 1 and Student 2 played football at the same club; neither was coached by the Teacher, however both knew the Teacher as a coach at the club, and Student 1 knew the Teacher as the coach of her older brother’s team.
The Teacher’s conduct the subject of the Referral occurred between the latter part of 2021 and early 2022 in relation to Student 1 when she was in years 10 and 11, and on various dates during 2022 in relation to Student 2 when she was in year 12. Student 1 and Student 2 attended different schools from one another, did not attend the school where the Teacher was employed, and were never in a direct student-teacher relationship with the Teacher.
The QCT seeks orders that the Teacher’s registration is cancelled, and the Teacher is prohibited from reapplying for registration as a teacher or permission to teach for a period of two to three years. Further, the QCT seeks that, before the Teacher’s registration or permission to teach can be reinstated, the register of teachers be endorsed with a notation that should the Teacher reapply, the application must be accompanied by an independent psychological report addressing certain matters to the satisfaction of the QCT.
The Teacher does not oppose the orders sought by the QCT and, in addition, seeks a non-publication order.
Legislation
Schedule 3 of the Act defines “approved teacher” as a person who is a registered teacher or holds a permission to teach and defines “relevant teacher” to include an approved teacher or a former approved teacher.
Section 92(1) of the Act sets out the grounds for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher, including the following:
(h) the person behaves in a way, whether connected with the teaching profession or otherwise, that does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher;
Under section 111A of the Act, the PC&TC Committee may refer a matter to the Tribunal where it reasonably believes that a ground for disciplinary action against a relevant teacher (an approved teacher or former approved teacher) may exist. Section 115 of the Act sets out the functions of the PC&TC Committee in relation to a practice and conduct matter, including the referral of a matter to the Tribunal.
Schedule 3 of the Act defines “former approved teacher” as a former registered teacher or a former holder of a permission to teach.
Section 161(2) of the Act sets out the Tribunal’s powers in circumstances where it decides that a ground for disciplinary action has been established against a former approved teacher. In summary, the Tribunal may:
(a)Decide to take no further action;
(b)Make an order that the teacher pay the QCT certain costs;
(c)If the Tribunal would have made an order cancelling the teacher’s registration or permission to teach if the teacher had been an approved teacher—make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration for a stated period from the day the order is made or indefinitely;
(d)Make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
Uncontested conduct allegations
The Teacher does not contest the conduct allegations the subject of the Referral and particularised as grounds 1 to 4 set out in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 of the Part C Attachment.
The conduct the subject of the Referral can be summarised as follows:
(a)In relation to Student 1:
(i) On various dates between 13 September 2021 and 8 February 2022, the Teacher engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexualised electronic communication with Student 1 via social media platform Instagram.
(ii) On various dates between 5 October 2021 and 14 February 2022, the Teacher engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexualised electronic communication (both messages and images) with Student 1 via social media platform Snapchat. The messages included that the Teacher has a crush on Student 1, he is aroused by Student 1, and he would be happy to assist Student 1 sexually. The images included an image of an erect penis, and an image containing written text purporting to be an email the Teacher received from a year 9 student he had taught.
(b)In relation to Student 2:
(i) On various dates during 2022, the Teacher engaged in inappropriate and/or overfamiliar and/or sexualised electronic communication with Student 2 via social media platform Snapchat, including requesting to socialise in person, stating that he wanted “to see where things could go”.
(ii) On 14 February 2022, the Teacher had delivered and/or purported to have delivered to Student 2 at her school a rose and balloon for Valentine’s Day.
Filed material
The Referral.
The QCT’s submissions on grounds, sanction and non-publication order dated and filed 14 March 2025.
The Teacher’s submissions dated 1 April 2025 and filed 4 April 2025.
Consideration
We are satisfied:
(a)The Teacher is a former approved teacher and therefore a relevant teacher.
(b)The Teacher’s conduct does not satisfy the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher.
(c)The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the matter and make orders pursuant to section 161(2) of the Act.
(d)The Teacher’s surrender of his registration renders a cancellation order unnecessary.
We note it is well settled that the purpose of sanctions in a disciplinary action is not punitive. Rather, the purpose is to achieve the main objects of the Act, being to uphold the standards of and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession and to protect the public, while providing specific and general deterrence.[1]
[1]Queensland College of Teachers v TSV [2015] QCAT 186, [25]; Queensland College of Teachers v IOP [2022] QCAT 241, [26]; the Act s 3.
We note in determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal may have regard to various factors, including:[2]
(a)The teacher’s antecedents and experience.
(b)The nature of the teacher’s conduct.
(c)The level of insight of the teacher.
(d)The impact the conduct may have on students.
(e)Whether any remedial action has been taken by the teacher.
[2]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher BAM [2012] QCAT 694, [41].
We have regard to these and other factors in weighing the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of this case and considering the overall gravity of the Teacher’s conduct.
Mitigating circumstances
The Teacher was aged 25 to 26 years and had been employed as a teacher for three to four years at the time of the conduct the subject of the Referral, and on that basis, it is reasonable to consider him a somewhat young and inexperienced teacher at the relevant time.
The Teacher was not at the relevant time, nor at any other time, employed at either of the schools that Student 1 or Student 2 attended.
There was no direct student-teacher relationship between Student 1 or Student 2 and the Teacher.
There was no physical contact between the Teacher and Student 1 or Student 2.
The Teacher agreed to participate in the QCT’s investigation.
The Teacher voluntarily surrendered his teacher registration, was removed from the teacher register on 22 January 2024 and resigned from his then teaching position effective 28 January 2024.
In January 2024, the Teacher accessed the Professional Boundaries web seminar and other related material regarding communicating safely on social media and engaging with students. He submits that since this training he has a clearer understanding of professional boundaries outside the school environment and has strictly limited his access to social media accounts.
The Teacher’s cooperation in this proceeding has obviated the need for the Tribunal to conduct an oral hearing of the matter and make findings of fact regarding his conduct.
The Teacher acknowledges in his material that his conduct breached professional boundaries and impacted the students, their families, the sporting community, and the teaching profession. He expresses extreme remorse for his conduct and includes specific apologies to the students, the football club, the Department of Education and relevant schools, and his former teaching colleagues, however it is not clear whether he has communicated the apologies to these parties. He submits that whilst not an excuse, at the time of the conduct, his relationship with his then fiancé was breaking down resulting in stress and clouded sound judgement. He further submits that since that time, he has formed a stable new relationship and matured greatly.
We note there is no direct evidence before the Tribunal of the impact of the Teacher’s conduct on Student 1 or Student 2.
The suspension of the Teacher’s registration resulted in the suspension of the Teacher’s Blue Card and the Teacher being prevented from coaching, volunteering, or working around football or sport, activities he has participated in since he was aged 15 years.
The Teacher submits that he has sought advice regarding an appropriate psychologist should he seek to return to teaching in the future and be required to provide a psychological report.
The Teacher concludes his submissions stating that “he is fully committed to improving personally and professionally and will accept any orders imposed by the tribunal as a result”.
Aggravating circumstances
The Teacher’s conduct involved two students.
The Teacher was aware at the time of the conduct that both students were of secondary school age.
The Teacher made repeated requests of Student 2 to meet in person, which she declined, telling him that she didn’t feel comfortable about the age difference and didn’t want to pursue anything.
In the main, the Teacher did not contest the conduct allegations, however in relation to the delivery of the rose and balloon to Student 2’s school on Valentine’s Day 2022, he initially said he didn’t recall having done so and that he told Student 2 he had done so in an attempt to cheer her up. It was only after the QCT investigator went to some lengths to verify the allegation (obtaining the florist order and cross referencing it to the Teacher’s mobile number and bank statement) and was given a warning, that the Teacher did not deny the allegation and accepted he had made a mistake.
Previous decisions
Section 158(2) of the Act requires that in making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to any relevant previous decision by a practice and conduct body of which the Tribunal is aware.
The QCT in its submissions cite three decisions[3] we will refer to as QKE, NRR, and EKR in support of a sanction by way of a prohibition on reapplication for teacher registration in the range of two to three years.
[3]Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher QKE [2013] QCAT 548; Queensland College of Teachers v NRR [2021] QCAT 152; Queensland College of Teachers v EKR [2023] QCAT 136.
QKE involved a 38 year-old male teacher with around 16 years’ teaching experience. Over five months, he sent overfamiliar messages to a 16 year-old student, including that he wanted her and wanted to catch up, and an image of his penis, and on one occasion, touched her leg. He did not teach the student; she was the daughter of a family friend. The teacher admitted and acknowledged his conduct. He was prohibited from applying for teacher registration for two years from the date of the decision and a psychological report notation was entered on the register.
NRR involved a 39 year-old male teacher with around 16 years’ teaching experience. Over two months, he engaged in intimate and/or sexual communications with three students including the exchange of images and references to drug, alcohol, and steroid use. The teacher acknowledged and took responsibility for his conduct. He was prohibited from applying for teacher registration for two years and nine months from the date of his suspension and a psychological report notation was entered on the register.
EKR involved a 42 year-old male teacher with one years’ teaching experience in Australia and some prior experience overseas. Over six months, he engaged in overfamiliar communication with a student, including saying he loved her, and she made his day better. He suggested it wasn’t necessary for her to tell people, and on one occasion grabbed her hand and squeezed it. The teacher acknowledged his conduct but showed little remorse and insight. He was prohibited from applying for teacher registration for two years from the date of refusal of his registration and a psychological report notation was entered on the register.
We consider these cases have some equivalence with the current case to the extent they involved conduct of a similar nature with female students of a similar age, two of the teachers acknowledged and took responsibility for their conduct, and one of the teachers was not in a teaching relationship with the student. An important difference however is the teachers were considerably more mature and/or professionally experienced than the Teacher in the current case. Further differences include: QKE and EKR involved physical contact, albeit very limited; NRR involved three students and messaging about drug, alcohol, and steroid use; and NRR and EKR each involved a teacher in a teaching relationship with the student or students.
In a decision we will refer to as REC,[4] the Tribunal in its analysis of various previous decisions considered a teacher’s lack of maturity and experience a mitigating factor. The male teacher in that case was aged 22 years and had been teaching for around 17 months. He had taught a year 10 student one lesson of a physical education class and a year later came in contact with the same student at a tutorial in the school library. The teacher sent naked pictures of himself to the student and encouraged her to do the same; he received naked and near-naked pictures of the student; he made comments about her body; he commented about assisting her losing her virginity; he suggested that communications be kept secret; he attended the student’s home on two occasions; and he kissed the student on the first occasion. There was no other personal contact between the teacher and the student. The teacher showed deep remorse for his conduct, apologised to a number of affected people, and had undergone a period of psychological counselling to address his mental health issues. He was prohibited from applying for teacher registration for 12 months from the date he was removed from the register due to non-payment of fees and a psychological report notation was entered on the register.
[4]Queensland College of Teachers v REC [2020] QCAT 178.
We consider that REC extends the lower end of the prohibition period range submitted by the QCT.
Findings
Prohibition period
We find that grounds for disciplinary action against the Teacher have been established under section 92(1)(h) of the Act. As the Teacher is a former approved teacher, section 161 of the Act applies.
Section 161(2)(c) of the Act requires the Tribunal to first determine whether, if the teacher had been an approved teacher, we would have made an order cancelling the teacher’s registration. In this case, we determine that we would have made such an order in relation to the Teacher.
Section 161(2)(c) of the Act then empowers the Tribunal to make an order prohibiting the teacher from reapplying for registration or permission to teach for a stated period (‘the prohibition period’) from the date the order is made or indefinitely.
The QCT seeks a prohibition period in the range of two to three years. We consider however the conduct in this case begets a period of prohibition that positions the Teacher’s conduct on a scale between REC and QKE, and closer to QKE. The Teacher was more mature and experienced than REC by around three years; there was no physical contact with Student 1 or Student 2 however there were two students involved, not one, and he persisted in his attempts to meet up with Student 2 despite her repeatedly declining and telling him she didn’t feel comfortable about the age difference and didn’t want to pursue anything; and whilst he has completed some online professional boundary training and expressed a willingness to seek psychological help, he has done so to demonstrate a commitment to complying with the QCT’s reapplication conditions in the future, whereas REC self-initiated and undertook psychological counselling to address his conduct soon after its occurrence.
As already noted, the Teacher voluntarily surrendered his registration and was removed from the register of teachers on 22 January 2024, after first having been suspended on 1 September 2023. It was not until May 2024 that the PC&TC Committee decided to refer the matter to the Tribunal, and not until November 2024 that the Referral was filed in the Tribunal.
We consider the appropriate prohibition period in this matter is 21 months, however we find it is not appropriate that the Teacher serve the prohibition henceforth given that it is now more than two years and two months since his registration was suspended and more than 21 months since he surrendered his registration. Accordingly, pursuant to section 161(2)(a) of the Act, we determine to take no further action in relation to the matter.
Notation
The QCT seeks an order that a notation, specifically worded, be entered in the register requiring that any reapplication by the Teacher for registration or permission to teach be accompanied by an independent psychological report to the QCT’s satisfaction addressing, in summary, whether the psychologist is satisfied that the Teacher has adequately understood and addressed his conduct.
Section 161(2)(d) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to make an order in relation to a former approved teacher that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
Section 288(1) of the Act requires the QCT to keep a register about approved teachers containing certain details including any conditions of registration, any suspension, and any notation/endorsement under a practice and conduct order. Section 288(5) further requires that the register contain details of any cancellation of registration or permission to teach by the Tribunal under section 56 of the Act or by the Tribunal under section 160 of the Act (which empowers the Tribunal to make orders in relation to an approved teacher).
Schedule 3 of the Act defines ‘register’ as the register of approved teachers kept by the QCT under section 288.
There is no requirement under the Act that the QCT keep a register about former approved teachers, other than as provided for in section 288(5) of the Act. This observation was also made in a recent decision we will refer to as KDH.[5]
[5]Queensland College of Teachers v KDH [2024] QCAT 501.
In this case, following the Teacher’s surrender of his registration, the Teacher was removed from the register. Accordingly, there is no practical means by which a notation or endorsement about the Teacher can be entered on the register.
In KDH, the Tribunal determined that section 161(2)(d) of the Act cannot be used as a means of imposing conditions in the form of a notation or endorsement on a teacher seeking reregistration. If the legislature had intended to give the Tribunal such a power in relation to a former approved teacher, it would have included in section 161(2) an equivalent provision to section 160(2)(h), which expressly permits the Tribunal to impose conditions, and to leave the issue in no doubt, an equivalent provision to section 160(2)(k), which permits the Tribunal to make another order it considers appropriate. However, section 161(2) is absent these provisions.
Accordingly, the order sought by the QCT is refused.
We endorse the Tribunal’s comments in KDH at paragraphs [141] and [142] stating the case for legislative amendment to ensure that all information arising from practice and conduct proceedings in relation to former approved teachers is available on a public register.
Non-publication
Pursuant to section 66 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’), the Tribunal may make an order prohibiting the publication of any information that may identify a person who has appeared before the Tribunal where the Tribunal considers the order necessary for the reasons stated in the provision, including any other reason in the interests of justice.
The exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion pursuant to section 66 of the QCAT Act is informed by the principle of open justice[6] and the party seeking the non-publication order must satisfy the Tribunal it is necessary.[7]
[6]Health Ombudsman v Shermer (No 2) [2019] QCAT 54, [6] (Allen DCJ).
[7]Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89, [8]–[9].
Both parties have made submissions in support of an ongoing non-publication order.
We are satisfied it would be contrary to the public interest for information to be published that would identify the Teacher, Student 1 or Student 2, any relevant complainant or child, or any relevant school or sporting club other than to the extent necessary for the QCT to meet its statutory obligations. We will order accordingly.
Human rights considerations
The question here is whether there are any relevant considerations under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘the HR Act’).
The HR Act applies to courts and tribunals when they are performing functions that are relevant to the rights protected under the Act. This includes both the judicial and administrative functions of courts and tribunals. Judicial functions include hearing and determining cases.
The HR Act requires that all legislation is to be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights, to the extent that it is consistent with the purpose of the legislation. If legislation cannot be interpreted that way, it is to be interpreted in a way that is most compatible with human rights, to the extent that it is consistent with the purpose of the legislation.
‘Compatible with human rights’ means the legislation does not limit a human right or limits a human right only to the extent that it is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in accordance with section 13 of the HR Act. Relevant factors include the nature of the human right and the importance of the purpose of the limitation.
We find that to the extent that the Tribunal’s orders in this matter may be considered to limit in any way the Teacher’s human rights, the limitation is reasonably and demonstrably justifiable for the protection of the public and upholding the standards of and maintaining public confidence in the teaching profession.
Tribunal’s power to make a notation order – Member Jensen’s dissenting reasoning
Member Jensen: I agree with the decision and reasons of the other members of the Tribunal with one exception. The exception is whether the Tribunal has the power to order that a notation be entered in the register pursuant to section 161(2)(d) of the Act. In my view, the Tribunal has power to make the order for the reasons that follow.
Power to make an order
Section 161(1) of the Act states that section 161 applies if the relevant teacher is a former approved teacher.
Section 161(2)(d) of the Act provides that if the Tribunal decides a ground for disciplinary action against the relevant teacher has been established, the Tribunal may:
make an order that a particular notation or endorsement about the teacher be entered in the register.
A “relevant teacher” is defined in Schedule 3 of the Act to mean either an “approved teacher” or a “former approved teacher”.
Because of the use of the expression “relevant teacher” in both section 161(1) and 161(2)(d), and the clear and unambiguous wording of the provision, I am satisfied that the Tribunal may make order that a notation or endorsement be entered in the register where the teacher is either an approved teacher or a former approved teacher.
In this case, the relevant teacher is a former approved teacher.
The order can be put into effect
On a proper interpretation, the Act allows for the Tribunal order made under section 161(2)(d) to be put into effect (in relation to a “former approved teacher”) for the following reasons:
(a)Section 288 requires the QCT to keep a register about approved teachers.
(b)There is a definition of “register” in Schedule 3 which:
means the register of approved teachers kept by the college under s 288.
(c)The definition of “register” is of little assistance in the interpretation of section 288 and how the provision is meant to work because it merely refers to the register kept by the college under section 288.
(d)The register must contain the details for each approved teacher listed in section 288(3)(a)–(q) including subparagraph (m), which allows an endorsement or notation about the teacher entered in the register under a practice and conduct order.
(e)Paragraph (m) carries into effect the order of the Tribunal made under section 161(2)(d).
(f)The elements of a “practice and conduct order” as defined in Schedule 3 are:
(i) an order made against a relevant teacher (and a relevant teacher includes a former approved teacher);
(ii) by a practice and conduct body;
(iii) under chapter 5, part 4 or chapter 6, part 2, division 2.[8]
(g)A “practice and conduct body” is defined in Schedule 3 to mean the PC&TC Committee or the Tribunal when undertaking disciplinary action under the Act.
(h)A “disciplinary action” means action taken against a relevant teacher by a practice and conduct body under chapter 6, part 2, division 2.
(i)The Tribunal order against the relevant teacher is made under section 161 which section falls within chapter 6, part 2, division 2.
(j)An order made in relation to a former approved teacher is under section 161 and is therefore within section 288(3)(m).
[8]The Act ss 130–168.
All teachers begin their careers as “approved teachers” and this is why section 288(3) of the Act requires certain details to be kept for each approved teacher. The process of keeping a register begins with approved teachers.
However, it is not intended that the register kept under section 288 (register) be restricted to contain details only of approved teachers. It is the intention of the legislature that the register be allowed to be developed over time by including details about a “former approved teacher” as follows:
(a)Section 288(3)(m) as discussed above;
(b)Section 288(3)(n) also allows for details of any other practice and conduct order made against the teacher;
(c)Under section 288(5) the details of an “approved teacher” whose registration is cancelled by the college under section 56(2) or by the Tribunal under section 160 (and thereby becomes a “former approved teacher”) are to be included in the register.[9] The process required by section 288(5) therefore involves entering details of a “former approved teacher” into the register kept under section 288.
(d)Section 288(1) provides the QCT must keep a register about (not of) approved teachers.
(e)The use of the word “about” in section 288(1) gives scope to the contents of the register the QCT must keep.
[9]“former approved teacher” is defined in Sch 3 to mean a “former registered teacher”. A “former registered teacher” in relation to a disciplinary matter means a person who is no longer a registered teacher.
It is the case that the details kept in the register under section 288(3)(j) in relation to “any conditions of the registration or permission to teach” can only be contained in the register while the conditions are in force under section 288(4). However, this requirement relates to conditions of registration or permission to teach and is no justification for reading down the operation of paragraph (m).
It is also a matter of common sense that the register kept under section 288 be developed over time thereby having all the details in the one single register and doing away with the need for a separate register of “former approved teachers”. As stated, the register about approved teachers can be developed as explained above.
Allowing the notation in relation to a former approved teacher is consistent with section 289 of the Act – inspection of register. The registered notation is not publicly available information as it falls outside the scope that is the “publicly available part” under section 289.
In my view the notation requested by the QCT should be entered in the register. First, it is a reasonable requirement given the seriousness of the Teacher’s actions. Second, the information required by the notation will assist the QCT in assessing any future application for registration or permission to teach. Third, the Teacher does not oppose the order being made.[10]
[10]Respondent’s submissions filed 4 April 2025, paragraph 1c.
I therefore also order that a notation be entered in the register pursuant to section 161(2)(d) of the Act that should the Teacher apply for registration or permission to teach, the application must be accompanied by an independent psychological report to the QCT’s satisfaction providing an assessment as to whether the psychologist is satisfied that the Teacher has adequately understood and addressed the 13 matters listed in the QCT’s submission.
0
10
3