Rachelle and Victorian Institute of Teaching
[2025] ARTA 802
•20 June 2025
Rachelle and Victorian Institute of Teaching [2025] ARTA 802 (20 June 2025)
Applicant:Georgina Anne Rachelle
Respondent: Victorian Institute of Teaching
Tribunal Number: 2022/7062
Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic
Place:Melbourne
Date:20 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.....................[SGD]...................................................
Senior Member A. Nikolic
Catchwords
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth) – Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) – crimes in New Zealand and Australia – failure to comply with statutory reporting obligations – cancellation of teaching registration – reinstatement of teaching registration refused – whether appropriate in the circumstances to reinstate registration – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth)
Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic)
Victorian Institute of Teaching Act 2001 (Vic)
Education Act 1989 (NZ)
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (NZ)Education and Training Act 2020 (NZ)
Cases
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 41 FLR 338
Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250
Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1803
Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234
Rachelle and Victorian Institute of Teaching [2023] AATA 2722
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Victorian Institute of Teaching v Rachelle [2024] FCA 958Georgina Rachelle and Air New Zealand Limited (Christchurch) [2017] NZERA 1140
Secondary Materials
Explanatory Memorandum, Education and Training Reform Amendment Bill 2009 (Vic)
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant, Ms Georgina Rachelle, has asked the Tribunal to review a decision by the Victorian Institute of Teaching (‘the Institute’), to refuse reinstatement of her teacher registration.
The hearing was held in person at the Tribunal’s Melbourne Registry on 11 June 2025. The Applicant claimed she is a lawyer and represented herself. The Respondent was represented by Mr James Stoller of counsel, instructed by the Institute.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
BACKGROUND
The extensive procedural history of this case is summarised as follows:
(a)The Applicant first applied for teacher registration in Victoria in 2010. During the application process she was asked to comment on a criminal record check that disclosed a 2006 finding of guilt for Obtain financial advantage by deception.[1] She responded with a Statutory Declaration confirming that she pleaded guilty to this offence, but did not declare it because a conviction was not recorded.[2] The Tribunal infers from the Institute’s registration of the Applicant as a Victorian teacher in February 2011[3] that her explanation was accepted.
[1] Exhibit R1, 56.
[2] Ibid 10.
[3] Ibid 172 [4], 340 [4].
(b)In May 2013, the Applicant relocated to New Zealand. Under mutual recognition arrangements she was eligible to apply for registration as a teacher in New Zealand.[4] There is no dispute she applied[5] but currently claims not to have ‘followed it through’[6] and insists she was never registered nor taught in New Zealand schools.
[4] Pursuant to s 14 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act (NZ), which is the New Zealand equivalent of the TTMR Act.
[5] Exhibit R1, 11, 224 [41].
[6] Ibid 224 [46]–[47]; 232 [7]–[14].
(c)On 2 August 2016, the Applicant was convicted in New Zealand for drink driving. She was disqualified from driving for eight months, had to undertake 50 hours of community work, and six months of supervision.[7]
[7] Ibid 63 [3].
(d)On 26 October 2017, the Applicant was again convicted of drink driving. This resulted in a sentence of 100 hours’ community work, 12-month intensive supervision order, and disqualification from driving or holding a licence for an indefinite period.[8]
[8] Ibid 63 [4].
(e)The New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal (‘NZTDT’) became aware of the drink driving convictions (‘first group of charges’) and instituted disciplinary proceedings via a hearing on 5 June 2019.[9] The Applicant appeared in person. The NZTDT decided that the Applicant did not comply with mandatory reporting obligations as required by s 397 of the Education Act 1989 (NZ).[10] On 17 July 2019, her registration as a teacher was cancelled and she was censured.[11] The Applicant appealed this decision in New Zealand’s District Court.[12]
[9] Ibid 13.
[10] This Act was repealed on 1 August 2020 by s 669(3) of the Education and Training Act 2020 (NZ).
[11] Exhibit R1, 34 [43]–[44], 38 [57].
[12] Ibid 39.
(f)In August 2019, the Applicant applied to the Institute to renew her Australian teacher registration. The Respondent contends she failed to disclose her residence in New Zealand, registration as a teacher, the first group of charges, and deregistration by the NZTDT by responding ‘No’ to the following questions on the renewal form:
a. Have you ever held registration as a teacher in another Australian State or Territory or overseas?
b. Has your registration as a teacher in another Australian State or Territory or overseas been cancelled for any reason?
c. Have you been refused registration as a teacher in Australia or overseas?
d. Have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offence in Victoria or elsewhere?
e. In the past two years, have you resided in a country other than Australia for a period of 12 months or more?
f. Have you resided in a country other than Australia during the last 10 years?
(g)The Respondent contends the Applicant also failed to disclose these matters in a registration renewal application lodged in July 2020.
(h)On 11 November 2020, New Zealand’s District Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the NZTDT decision.[13] The Applicant appealed this to New Zealand’s Court of Appeal.
[13] Ibid 64 [7].
(i)On 25 April 2021, the Applicant returned to Australia.
(j)On 26 April 2021, the Applicant was charged with three counts of making a threat to kill and one count of using a carriage service to menace (‘second group of charges’). These related to conduct between December 2018 and April 2021 involving [redacted] (‘the affected person’).[14] On 14 May 2021, an interim Family Violence Intervention Order (‘FVIO’) was issued preventing the Applicant from contacting the affected person.[15] It is uncontroversial she subsequently did so by making calls and leaving voicemails.
[14] Ibid 40, 341 [8].
[15] Ibid 101.
(k)On 4 May 2021, Victoria Police notified the Institute of the second group of charges.[16]
[16] Ibid 72.
(l)On 29 July 2021, the Applicant appeared in court regarding the second group of charges, entered pleas of guilty, and was fined an aggregate of $1000.[17]
[17] Ibid 57.
(m)On 4 August 2021 and 20–27 September 2021, the Institute wrote to the Applicant regarding the second group of charges.[18]
[18] Ibid 69–74, 87–92.
(n)On 12 August 2021, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal declined the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal the District Court decision.[19]
[19] Ibid 62–66.
(o)On 22 November 2021, further charges were made against the Applicant relating to conduct involving the affected person between August and November 2021. These consisted of four counts of contravening an FVIO, one count of using a carriage service to harass, and one charge of persistently contravening a final FVIO (‘third group of charges’).[20] On 23 November 2021, Victoria Police notified the Institute about these.
[20] Ibid 87–92.
(p)At some point the Applicant appealed the second group of charges and the Tribunal infers she likely rescinded her previous guilty pleas.[21] On 25 November 2021, the County Court overturned the Magistrates’ Court convictions.[22]
[21] Ibid 108.
[22] Ibid 111.
(q)On 7 December 2021, the Applicant submitted a handwritten letter to the Institute in in which she said:
…I refuse to have all my studies and hard work over the last 11 years of being in the education Industry just erased and dismissed due to a tectnacality; that would be deverstating!
My circumstaces as an educator has not changed since my last renewal, and all details remain the same.[23]
[23] Ibid 111–114.
(Errors in original)
(r)On 8 March 2022, the Institute was informed by New Zealand’s Teaching Council about the Applicant’s deregistration in July 2019.[24]
[24] Ibid 125 [7].
(s)On 5 April 2022, the Institute notified the Applicant that her teaching registration was cancelled under s 32(1) of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth) (‘TTMR Act’).[25] She was invited to make representations within 28 days seeking reinstatement.
[25] Ibid 125–127.
(t)On 11 April 2022, the Applicant sought reinstatement.[26] She claimed that an appeal into her New Zealand deregistration was ‘due to be heard in the High Court as a result of media press and disaproval [sic] from the public of how I have been treated’. The Applicant also claimed she ‘did not have to disclose’ the drink driving convictions because she ‘never set foot in a classroom in New Zealand’.
(u)On 8 July 2022, the Applicant attended court to answer the third group of charges. She was found guilty of persistently contravening a FVIO and fined $500, but a conviction was not recorded.[27] The other charges were withdrawn.[28]
(v)On 28 July 2022, the Institute advised the Applicant of its decision not to reinstate her teacher registration.[29]
(w)On 24 August 2022, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to review the Institute’s decision.[30]
(x)On 3 April 2023, the Applicant appeared at a hearing of this Tribunal, differently constituted (‘first Tribunal’).[31]
(y)On 12 May 2023, the Applicant was found guilty without a conviction being recorded of contravening an interim FVIO and failing to answer bail (‘fourth group of charges’).[32] Following compliance with a six-month bond/undertaking, these charges were dismissed on 10 November 2023.[33]
(z)On 25 August 2023, the first Tribunal set aside the Institute’s decision.[34]
(aa)The Institute appealed to the Federal Court of Australia and, on 23 August 2024, Justice McEvoy quashed the first Tribunal decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration by a differently constituted Tribunal.[35]
(bb)On 7 May 2024, the Applicant was found guilty without a conviction being recorded of contravening a final FVIO, for which she was fined $750.[36] This related to conduct in March 2024 involving [redacted] (‘another affected person’).[37]
(cc)On 25 June 2024, the Applicant was convicted on two counts of contravening a final FVIO for which she was fined $1,000.[38]
[26] Ibid 128–130.
[27] Ibid 145.
[28] Ibid 140–144.
[29] Ibid 5–8.
[30] Ibid 1–4.
[31] Ibid 257–272.
[32] Ibid 373.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Rachelle and Victorian Institute of Teaching [2023] AATA 2722.
[35] Victorian Institute of Teaching v Rachelle [2024] FCA 958.
[36] Exhibit R1, 409.
[37] Ibid 411, 415-416, 424-425.
[38] Ibid 464.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The Tribunal’s procedure is at its discretion, and it can act with as little formality and technicality as a proper consideration of matters before it permits.[39] Section 52 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (‘ART Act’) provides that ‘the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it considers appropriate’. The Tribunal ‘stand[s] in the shoes of the original decision-maker’ but considers the available evidence ‘at the time of [its] decision’.[40]
[39] ART Act, ss 49–50.
[40] Frugtniet v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2019) 266 CLR 250 at 271 [51]; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at 299 [40], 315 [100], 324–325 [134].
The Institute is an independent statutory authority established under the Victorian Institute of Teaching Act 2001 (Vic). It is tasked with registering and regulating schoolteachers in Victoria pursuant to Part 2.6 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) (‘ETR Act’). Relevant sections of the ETR Act include:
(a)Section 2.6.1 of the ETR Act defines the term ‘fitness to teach’ to include ‘the character, reputation and conduct of a person…such that the person should be allowed to teach in a school or in an early childhood service’.
(b)The functions of the Institute at s 2.6.3 of the ETR Act encompass regulatory and investigative functions focussed on ‘standards of professional practice for entry into and remaining in the teaching profession’.
(c)Under s 2.6.3(1A) of the ETR Act, when performing any regulatory function, the Institute ‘must consider the wellbeing and safety of children, including by taking into account community expectations’.
(d)Under s 2.6.9(2) of the ETR Act, the Institute ‘may refuse to grant registration’ on several grounds as follows:
(a) that the character of the applicant is such that it would not be in the public interest to allow the applicant to teach in a school;
…;
(c) that the applicant has engaged in category C conduct and—
(i) the ability of the applicant to teach in a school is likely to be affected because of the conduct engaged in; or
(ii) it is not in the public interest to allow the applicant to teach in a school because of the conduct engaged in;
…
(d) that the applicant has previously held a right to teach (being the equivalent of registration as a teacher under this Act), or been employed as a teacher, in a school in another State or Territory or another country and that right or employment has been cancelled or suspended and not restored because of conduct which, if committed within Victoria, would entitle the Institute to suspend or cancel the registration;
…;
(f) that the applicant has not produced evidence which satisfies the Institute of his or her suitability to teach.
Category C conduct is defined at s 1.1.3C of the ETR Act to encompass ‘a conviction or finding of guilt of an indictable offence, whether committed in Victoria or elsewhere’ or ‘conduct that forms the basis of a non-conviction charge’.
In addition to its statutory obligations under the ETR Act, the Institute is subject to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth) (‘TTMR Act’). The purpose of the TTMR Act at s 3(1) centres on enacting legislation in Australia that recognises certain New Zealand regulatory standards relating to goods and occupations.
Section 32 of the TTMR Act provides (emphasis added):
Disciplinary action
(1) If a person's registration in an occupation in New Zealand:
(a) is cancelled or suspended; or
(b) is subject to a condition;
on disciplinary grounds, or as a result of or in anticipation of criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings, then the person's registration in the equivalent occupation in an Australian jurisdiction is affected in the same way.
(2) However, the local registration authority of the Australian jurisdiction may reinstate any cancelled or suspended registration or waive any such condition if it thinks it appropriate in the circumstances.
(3) This section extends to registration effected apart from this Act.
(4) This section has effect despite any other provisions of this Part.
Section 397 of the Education Act 1989 (NZ) was in force when the Applicant was living in New Zealand and relevantly stated:[41]
397 Mandatory reporting of convictions
(1) Every holder of a practising certificate and every authorised person who is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for 3 months or more must, within 7 days of conviction, report the conviction to the Teaching Council.
(2) Failure to report a conviction to the Teaching Council in accordance with subsection (1) is misconduct that may give rise to disciplinary proceedings.
(3) The Registrar of every court must, unless the court expressly orders otherwise, report to the Teaching Council when a person whom the Registrar believes to be, or to have been, a teacher is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for 3 months or more.
(4) If the Registrar has reported a conviction to the Teaching Council under subsection (3), then, if that conviction is subsequently quashed, the Registrar must notify the Teaching Council of that fact.
[41] The replacement Education and Training Act 2020 (NZ) has the same provision at s 493.
ISSUE
The issue to be decided is whether it is appropriate in all the circumstances to reinstate the Applicant’s cancelled teaching registration.
The Applicant’s assertions about entitlement to compensation do not enliven the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal’s powers are limited to review of decisions made in the exercise of powers conferred by an enactment.[42] Section 64 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) sets out limited circumstances in which the Tribunal can review compensation applications, which the Applicant’s claims alone do not enliven.
EVIDENCE
[42] Section 12 of the ART Act; See also Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 41 FLR 338, 343.
Documentary evidence
Documents lodged by the Respondent numbering 464 pages were taken into evidence.[43] So was a determination by New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority dated 15 August 2017.[44] The Applicant objected to the latter being considered on the basis that it relates to a confidential settlement. There is no evidence of this, and the Tribunal accepts Mr Stoller’s submission that it is a public document, unprotected in the way the Applicant claims, and is only used to clarify when the Applicant worked at Air New Zealand.
[43] Exhibit R1.
[44] Exhibit R2, Georgina Rachelle and Air New Zealand Limited (Christchurch) [2017] NZERA 1140.
Oral evidence
The Applicant requested an in-person hearing, which the Tribunal accommodated. At the commencement of her oral testimony the Tribunal explained her privilege against self-incrimination, which the Applicant said she understood. At several points while giving evidence the Applicant referred to getting up at 3.00am to travel from country Victoria to attend the hearing. She also claimed a close relative she cares for was admitted to intensive care. The Tribunal offered to adjourn the hearing and resume by video if the Applicant preferred, but she declined this. The Applicant’s oral evidence is summarised as follows:
(a)The Applicant stated at the commencement of the hearing she is a lawyer, which repeats similar claims made to the NZTDT, New Zealand courts, this Tribunal, an Australian court, and police.[45] It is noteworthy that New Zealand’s Court of Appeal recorded her claim about being an ‘Australian Lawyer’[46] whereas she claimed at the first Tribunal hearing to be a New Zealand lawyer.[47] Her oral testimony about this issue is summarised as follows:
[45] Exhibit R1, 16, 31, 37, 63 [footnote 4], 192 [37], 222 [39], 224 [1], 229 [9], 375–6, 402 [10].
[46] Ibid 63 [footnote 4].
[47] Ibid 229 [9].
(i)When questioned about where she qualified as a lawyer, the Applicant initially stated it was in 2020 on ‘the South Island’ of New Zealand. When asked which institution, she claimed this could not be disclosed because she studied under a different name while under a witness protection program. When referred to her evidence at the first Tribunal hearing that she completed a law degree at the University of Otago,[48] the Applicant responded: ‘OK, so just leave it at that’.
[48] Ibid 229 [10]–[13].
(ii)The Applicant said it took her five years of full-time online study between 2013–2018 to complete her law degree. She claimed this was achieved concurrently while working for a commercial airline between 2014 and 2016[49] and then purporting to run her own transport business for two years.
[49] Exhibit R2.
(iii)When asked about the type of legal qualification she completed, the Applicant responded: ‘law degree – I did the bar and all that’. When pressed by Mr Stoller about type of qualification, she responded: ‘I think employment relations is what I qualified in’. When further pressed about type of qualification, the Applicant’s responses did not assist the Tribunal.
(iv)When asked by Mr Stoller if she did anything else after her law degree to qualify as a lawyer, the Applicant said she ‘worked in the field’ by ‘freelancing mostly…helping people – supporting people’. She claimed to have done this under the supervision of another lawyer for six months in 2019 but refused to name this person. When pressed, she stated the name of what is purportedly a law firm in New Zealand and invited Mr Stoller to make his own enquiries. When asked if she was under contract with this firm, the Applicant responded: ‘No, it’s like work experience’. When pressed about the type of legal work undertaken, the Applicant refused to disclose this. When asked if she did any other practical legal training, she responded: ‘No, COVID hit’.
(v)When asked by Mr Stoller whether her evidence to the NZTDT on 5 June 2019 about being a lawyer for ‘the past five years’ was accurate,[50] the Applicant responded: ‘If that’s what it says’. When put to her that this conflicted with her current claims about doing a law degree between 2013 and 2018, the Applicant did not address the question and instead referred to never teaching in New Zealand. When put directly to the Applicant that her claim to the NZTDT about being a lawyer was false, the Applicant responded: ‘No’. When asked if she was now claiming to have been a New Zealand lawyer since 2014, the Applicant responded: ‘Yep that’s right’. When put by Mr Stoller that her claim to the Magistrates’ Court in Melbourne on 4 October 2023 about being a lawyer for 10 years was false,[51] the Applicant responded: ‘No – just five years – not 10’.
[50] Exhibit R1, 31.
[51] Ibid 402 [10].
(vi)When put by Mr Stoller that the Applicant’s evidence about having a law degree and being a lawyer was false, she responded: ‘I don’t believe you…these are your words not mine…why would I sit here and make something up’.
(b)In terms of her teaching qualification, the Applicant said she undertook a three-year undergraduate degree at Deakin University and then a Diploma of Education at Monash University, before registering as a Victorian teacher in early 2011. She referred to herself as a ‘brilliant teacher’ and ‘one of the best teachers’, who ‘worked in the top schools of Melbourne’. She stood by a past documentary claim about teaching for ‘6 years in the field (mostly private schools)’[52] and claimed to have also been a ‘Director of Childcare for two years’. The Applicant gave an example of a ‘beautiful 10-year-old-girl’ whose life she changed as a teacher by casting her in a musical against the wishes of other teachers who ‘kept choosing blonde students’.
[52] Ibid 128.
(c)During cross-examination, the Applicant said that during her teacher training she did two placements. One was to Scotch College and the other was to a secondary school in Hawthorn whose name she could not recall, but she never taught at these schools once registered. She claimed to have initially worked as a secondary school teacher in country Victoria in 2011. When asked about her role, she referred to being a ‘Home Room Teacher’ tasked with getting the ‘bubbies ready for the day’. She also taught ‘English and SOSE’, claiming the latter ‘is a ridiculous subject’. The Applicant said some of the ‘kids [she taught] are a bit dumb basically’ and she was ‘training them up to be put through TAFE’. She explained some did not have ‘a lot of motivation because they’re all farm kids [and] dad’s going to leave [them] the farm anyway’. When challenged by Mr Stoller that it was inappropriate to refer to her students as ‘a bit dumb’, the Applicant responded: ‘I was just trying to put it in context – like they’re not dumb – maybe I should have used the word slow’.
(d)The Applicant claimed she taught drama, theatre studies, and English at another secondary school in country Victoria in 2012 but has not taught since departing for New Zealand in 2013. When challenged that her current narrative about teaching experience conflicted with an earlier claim that she taught for ‘6 years in the field (mostly private schools)’, the Applicant’s responses did not assist the Tribunal. When challenged by Mr Stoller that her evidence about transforming the life of a 10-year-old girl was inconsistent with the claim that she only worked in two secondary schools in 2011 and 2012, the Applicant claimed Mr Stoller ‘misunderstood’ her and insisted she had said the girl was in Year 10 and not 10 years old.
(e)The Applicant claimed that ‘just before Christmas 2024’ she was offered a job by the Victorian Department of Education as a principal at a government school with a $200,000 annual salary. She further claimed to have ‘lost’ this opportunity because of uncertainty about her teacher registration. She refused to state which school because she did not ‘want any of the students or parents to worry’.
(f)A persistent theme in the Applicant’s evidence is that her personal life has nothing to do with her professional life or ability to teach. She claimed the Institute was ‘barking on about a personal issue’ and drew an analogy between her deregistration and Australian Football League players who ‘do cocaine but still get to play [because] they’re good players, so they get to keep their jobs, their career’. She claimed to have done nothing wrong and said the Institute was ‘attacking’ her for ‘something [the affected person] did’. The Tribunal inferred this was a reference to a longstanding dispute with her sibling. The Applicant also referred to a ‘teacher crisis’ in Victoria as a reason why her registration should be reinstated.
(g)The Applicant accepts she applied for registration as a teacher in New Zealand but insisted she was never registered. She claimed that someone ‘from the Teacher’s Tribunal’ contacted her by telephone but she verbally declined registration by stating: ‘Thank you but no – I’m busy training staff members in Air New Zealand’. When asked to clarify what she was saying no to, the Applicant responded: ‘I suppose acknowledgement that I’m a teacher… it was a thank you but no I’m busy’. When put by Mr Stoller that she did not mention this telephone call during the last four years of her dispute with the Institute, the Applicant responded: ‘Why should I…I did not put one foot in a classroom in New Zealand…I was never registered as a teacher’. When asked by Mr Stoller if she accepted that someone could be registered as a teacher but never set foot in a classroom the Applicant responded: ‘I don’t believe so…because you need to sign documents…you need to basically date, stamp, signature, all of it…So how can I run around pretending to be a teacher when I’m not registered?’.
(h)The Applicant was asked why she personally appeared at the NZTDT hearing in 2019 if she was not a registered teacher. She said the NZTDT wanted her there and she made them ‘pay for the air ticket’ and hotel accommodation. She recalled having ‘a lovely day in Christchurch…It was so much fun. I got a free trip out of it and got out of the house for a bit...They were so embarrassed I wasn’t registered and they paid for the whole thing’. The Applicant claimed two members of the NZTDT apologised to her upon realising she was not registered: ‘I can’t use the F word, but they all just said what the beep are we doing here because they were just so embarrassed that I was not registered…so they’re like we’re so sorry and I just laughed and laughed…and they paid for the whole thing’. When challenged by Mr Stoller that nothing along these lines occurred, the Applicant responded: ‘Were you there, were you? Look at me – were you there…It absolutely happened’.
(i)Mr Stoller referred the Applicant to an extract of the NZTDT hearing where she is recorded as stating: ‘Yeah, I know’ in response to a reference by the Chair that she was a registered teacher.[53] The Applicant claimed this was ‘taken out of context’. When asked by Mr Stoller if she received the 2019 NZTDT decision, the Applicant said she received it but did not read it. When challenged that she must have read it because she lodged a court appeal to contest it, the Applicant responded: ‘probably’. When asked why she contested deregistration in New Zealand courts if she was never registered as a teacher, the Applicant responded: ‘Maybe boredom – I don’t know…being besmirched must have got to me’. She also claimed not to have been ‘treated with respect’ by the NZTDT. When asked by Mr Stoller if she ever appealed the Court of Appeal decision to New Zealand’s High Court, the Applicant said she did not. When referred to a letter dated 11 April 2022 in which she said the appeal ‘is still alive and due to be heard in the High Court’, the Applicant said she ‘probably’ made this claim because she was ‘worked up because [of] going to court for something [she] had not done’.
[53] Ibid 31 [34].
(j)When asked about her drink driving offences in New Zealand, the Applicant insisted she didn’t need to disclose these because she ‘wasn’t a registered teacher’. Her evidence about the drink driving offences is summarised as follows:
(i)She contextualised both offences as fleeing a violent situation at home, claiming she was ‘trying to save [her] life’, and insisted she only drove ‘300 metres’ on both occasions to a police station. The Applicant stated: ‘I don’t regret any of that…I wouldn’t change a thing’.
(ii)When asked by Mr Stoller about the NZTDT recording her evidence that only one of these offences related to fleeing a violent situation, the Applicant said this was ‘incorrect’. The Applicant claimed New Zealand police put her in a ‘Witness Protection Program’ between 2017 and 2021 under a different name because of fears arising from a former relationship. She refused to say what the different name was because she signed a ‘disclosure [sic] with the Chief of Police’. When challenged that every document in evidence, including the NZTDT decision record, judicial records, and New Zealand Employment Relations Authority proceedings are in her current name, the Applicant’s responses did not assist the Tribunal.
(iii)It was put to the Applicant that her claims about fleeing violence may have constituted a defence to drink driving, yet she was convicted on both occasions. She claimed that police apologised to her about having to proceed with the charges, but she accepted they had a job to do: ‘Well…if I’m over the limit, I’m over the limit…the men in blue they gotta do their job’. Mr Stoller asked the Applicant about references in the decision of New Zealand’s Court of Appeal rejecting her claims about escaping a violent situation.[54] The Applicant said this was because she ‘kept [her] ex-husband’s name safe’ and lied to prevent him losing his job. In later evidence she stated: ‘I had to protect him. He would have lost his job and career. I didn’t divulge all the details. There was no point in blaming him’.
[54] Ibid 64 [7]–[8].
(k)The Applicant was asked about findings of guilt and convictions against her in Australia. She cavilled with aspects of the history led by Mr Stoller, including that she was found guilty of contravening an FVIO on 25 June 2024.[55] The Applicant asserted without evidence that she successfully appealed this conviction in the County Court and attributed the persistence of this conviction in documents as resulting from: ‘miscommunication between judges and different courtrooms – you know – things get lost…So I have not been convicted of anything – any intervention I have not been convicted of’. When asked if she has any orders from the County Court to this effect the Applicant responded: ‘No’. In other evidence she agreed that she was ‘fined twice but it wasn’t like there was stalking or…breaking or entering’.
(l)On several occasions the Applicant attributed improper motives to family members for taking out intervention orders against her, which she contextualised as ‘entrapment’. She also claimed the Institute was trying to ‘get rid’ of her to avoid paying compensation and stated: ‘I don’t know how the [Institute’s] appeal got granted’. The Applicant believes the Federal Court overturned the first Tribunal decision under a wrong ‘assumption’ and because of negative media articles about her case in the Herald Sun. The Applicant also adopted an unnecessarily confrontational approach at times during her evidence. This included stating to counsel: ‘Whatever it says mate…Just get on with it – don’t just stand there reading crap that’s in front of you’. The Tribunal instructed her several times to engage in the proceeding in a more respectful way.
(m)A significant line of questioning during cross-examination related to the Applicant’s candour as a member of a regulated profession. When asked by Mr Stoller if she accepted that a member of a profession must be honest, the Applicant responded: ‘Of course’. When asked if she was entirely honest to this Tribunal, she responded: ‘I’m under oath so why would I lie?’. The Applicant was then asked about her responses to questions when seeking renewal of her Australian registration with the Institute.[56] The following is a summary:
(i)The Applicant claimed she answered ‘No’ to a question about overseas registration because she ‘didn’t teach in New Zealand’. When asked if she would still give the same answer today, she responded: ‘Correct’.
(ii)When asked why she answered ‘No’ to a question about whether her registration was cancelled overseas, the Applicant claimed it was because she ‘never registered as a teacher’.
(iii)When asked why she answered ‘No’ to a question about being found guilty of a criminal offence in Victoria or elsewhere, the Applicant responded: ‘I’m not guilty. I’m proud of standing up to domestic violence’. When pressed by Mr Stoller that the evidence disclosed findings of guilt and convictions against her in two countries, the Applicant insisted the question on the form related to convictions ‘in the last 12 months’, which she said is apparent ‘when you go through the website’. She claimed the question in the online form she completed did not ask ‘have you ever been found guilty of a criminal offence in Victoria or elsewhere?’. When challenged by Mr Stoller that her current evidence conflicts with her evidence at the first Tribunal hearing,[57] the Applicant’s response did not assist the Tribunal.
(iv)When asked why she answered ‘No’ to a question about residing in a country other than in Australia for a period of 12 months or more, the Applicant responded: ‘I flew between the two countries…So it was just like basically there was no period of 12 months that I was in one particular country…So I was basically between Queenstown and Melbourne’. When asked why she answered ‘No’ to a question about residing in a country other than Australia during the last 10 years, the Applicant initially denied doing so, then claimed she did not ‘have residency’ in New Zealand nor resided there ‘full time’.
(v)Mr Stoller asked the Applicant what her answer would be today if the Institute asked whether she had been found guilty of a criminal offence in Victoria or elsewhere. The Applicant responded: ‘I would say no because I have to put food on the table…And it’s got nothing to do with teaching’. When asked by Mr Stoller to confirm she would ‘lie to the regulator’ to get her registration, the Applicant responded: ‘It’s my career’.
[55] Ibid 464.
[56] Ibid 121 [Questions 1–6].
[57] Ibid 238 [30] and following, 239 [1]–[28].
TRIBUNAL CONSIDERATION
The term ‘fitness to teach’ encompasses factors such as qualifications, experience, adherence to professional standards, and reasonable proficiency to teach. As the relevant legislation shows, it also extends to considerations of character and reputation. There is nothing in the relevant law that limits consideration of a person’s fitness to teach to their conduct while engaged in teaching.
In Hughes,[58] the High Court reflected on the term ‘fit…with respect to an office’, by reference to former British jurist Sir Edward Coke (emphasis added):
"Fit" (or "idoneus") with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty knowledge and ability: "honesty to execute it truly, without malice affection or partiality; knowledge to know what he ought duly to do; and ability as well in estate as in body, that he may intend and execute his office, when need is, diligently, and not for impotency or poverty neglect it" – Coke... What under par. (c) the commissioner is required to have regard to is "the character, suitability and fitness of the applicant to hold the licence applied for."…
[58] Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127, 156–157 (Dixon CJ, McTiernan and Webb JJ).
In the Bond Media case, Brennan and Deane JJ, as their Honours then were, stated that an assessment of a person’s fitness is a ‘value judgement’ encompassing considerations of ‘propriety’.[59] Their Honours reasoned at 380 (emphasis added):
… The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive, but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.
[59] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, 380 (Brennan and Deane JJ).
The Tribunal has considered a brief hand-written letter from the Applicant’s parish priest dated 17 December 2024 attesting to her role as a carer and with the local faith community.[60] While this is positive regarding her general reputation, no reference is made to her past offending, non-compliance with professional obligations as a teacher, or fitness to teach. Apart from the Applicant’s self-congratulatory claims, there is no evidence to corroborate her teaching experience, past performance, professional qualities, or current suitability to teach. This evidence could have included details of the job offer she claims to have received in late 2024 to become a principal of a public school in Victoria, past employment contracts, or references from schools, colleagues, parents, and students. The Applicant’s claims were instead pitched at a high level of generality, such as stating teaching is her ‘heart and soul’, and that she aspires to mentor students because she’s ‘been there, done that’. The Applicant also invoked a current ‘teacher shortage’ as supporting her case for reinstatement.
[60] Exhibit R1, 372.
The Tribunal found aspects of the Applicant’s evidence to be inconsistent, revisionist, or implausible. She claimed at the first Tribunal hearing, for example, to have applied for registration as a teacher in New Zealand ‘but never received any notification and then basically didn’t turn her mind to it, because she wasn’t teaching’.[61] In contrast, she claimed at the current hearing that someone in New Zealand telephoned her about her application, but she verbally declined registration after finding another job. There is no corroborating evidence for this claim, which was not previously mentioned during her interactions with the Institute. The NZTDT decision record contains no reference to the Applicant disputing registration. It instead refers to her acknowledging registration and claiming that a local school in New Zealand told her she was ‘too qualified to teach’. This suggests the Applicant at least enquired about a teaching job. There is simply no plausible reason why the Applicant would contest a NZTDT disciplinary proceeding, then exercise judicial appeal rights after being deregistered, if she was never registered as a teacher. It is equally implausible that a statutory regulator and New Zealand courts would exercise their jurisdiction if the Applicant was never registered. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s uncorroborated assertions about never being registered as a teacher in New Zealand and prefers the NZTDT decision and subsequent judicial outcomes.
[61] Ibid 247 [47].
The Applicant committed two drink driving offences in New Zealand over a period of about a year and failed to report these and other relevant information in accordance with her professional reporting obligations in New Zealand and Australia. This reflects a concerning lack of candour. The Applicant’s misguided belief that disclosure is not required for conduct occurring in her personal life reflects a concerning lack of insight. The Tribunal does not accept that her drink driving offences resulted from fleeing life-threatening situations. If true, this would have likely constituted a valid defence to the charges, but the Tribunal is left with the Applicant’s assertions alone. Set against her current claims are pleas of guilty to both drink driving charges and the New Zealand Court of Appeal’s rejection of the claims now advanced.[62] A plea of guilt constitutes admission to all essential elements of an offence.[63] It is also impermissible for the Tribunal to impugn the essential factual basis of convictions made by a court of competent jurisdiction.[64] The Tribunal again prefers the NZTDT decision and judicial references regarding the drink driving offences to the Applicant’s uncorroborated assertions.
[62] Ibid 64 [7]–[8].
[63] Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501, 510.
[64] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234 at 244–245; HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1803, [89] (Bromberg J).
The Respondent invited the Tribunal to accept that the second group of charges and an audio file relating to these charges[65] are contextually relevant to the Applicant’s case. The Tribunal does not accept this in circumstances where the charges were dismissed by the County Court of Victoria, rendering an earlier Magistrates’ Court decision void. No weight is placed on the second group of charges or transcript of an audio file relating to these.
[65] Exhibit R1, 304–308.
The Applicant’s revisionist narrative about her offending in Australia was uncorroborated and unpersuasive. The Tribunal finds she was:
(a)Found guilty on 8 July 2022, without a conviction being recorded, of one count of persistently contravening an FVIO, for which she was fined $500.[66]
(b)Found guilty on 12 May 2023, without a conviction being recorded, of contravening an interim FVIO and failing to answer bail, for which she received a six-month bond / undertaking, following successful completion of which the charges were dismissed on 10 November 2023.[67]
(c)Found guilty on 7 May 2024, without a conviction being recorded, of contravening a final FVIO, resulting in a fine of $750.[68]
(d)Found guilty and convicted on 25 June 2024 on two counts of contravening a final FVIO, resulting in a fine of $1,000.[69]
[66] Ibid 145.
[67] Ibid 373.
[68] Ibid 409.
[69] Ibid 464.
Aspects of the Applicant’s testimony about why she responded ‘No’ to certain questions on her teacher renewal applications in Australia were inconsistent with past evidence and reflect a lack of candour. Plainly she was living in New Zealand from early 2013 for a period of about 8 years, was found guilty of drink driving in 2016 and 2017, and was aware that the NZTDT deregistered her as a teacher in 2019. Her explanations about why she responded no to questions about these facts were unpersuasive.
The Applicant’s claims about working for six years as a teacher ‘in the field’, mostly in ‘private schools’, and as a ‘Director of Childcare for two years’, are uncorroborated and implausible. It is also implausible that someone with scant post-registration experience, who had been deregistered as a teacher, would be offered a position as principal of a public school in 2024. This includes because aspects of the Applicant’s testimony raise concerns about her teaching perspectives. For example, she referred to SOSE[70] as ‘a ridiculous subject’ and to some of her students as ‘a bit dumb’ and lacking motivation as ‘farm kids’ waiting to inherit the family farm. A purportedly ‘brilliant teacher’ with a passion for education would not refer to students or the curriculum in such pejorative ways.
[70] The Tribunal inferred this was a reference to a subject called Studies of Society and Environment.
The Applicant’s uncorroborated and inconsistent claims about being a lawyer in tribunal, judicial, and other settings in Australia and New Zealand are rejected. This includes because she was unable to state what degree or other training qualifies her to be a lawyer, could not recall the university she purportedly qualified at, refused to name a purported legal supervisor, or the type of legal work undertaken. More broadly, aspects of the Applicant’s conduct were unnecessarily confrontational. She contextualised this hearing as being ‘dragged back to start again for some reason’ and attributed inapt reasons for the Court’s remittal. During oral testimony she also accused the Respondent’s representatives of conduct that is factually untrue.
CONCLUSION
While it can be accepted the Applicant has a strong desire to return to teaching, her misguided belief that personal conduct is unrelated to fitness to teach reflects a concerning lack of insight about professional obligations and community expectations. Teachers are members of a profession who engage in important influence relationships with students, parents, and the broader community. Factors such as teaching experience, performance as a teacher, perspectives about teaching, compliance with professional obligations, criminal history, conduct leading to sanction, deregistration, or relating more generally to candour, character, and reputation, are apposite to assessing a person’s fitness to teach.
The Applicant was found guilty of or convicted of several offences in New Zealand and Australia. This includes repeat drink driving and FVIO breaches. She contextualises the former, without evidence, as fleeing a life and death situation, while blaming the latter on victims who were granted protection from her conduct by police and the courts. The Applicant also failed to comply with professional disclosure obligations as a registered teacher. The Tribunal is concerned about her current testimony that she would continue answering ‘No’ to questions on the Institute’s registration renewal forms despite knowing the answer is untrue. The evidence reflects the Applicant’s continuing tendency to offend, inability to regulate her emotions in respect of prolonged disputes with some family members, and to demonstrate the candour reasonably expected of someone in a regulated profession. The behavioural issues bearing on her character and compliance with professional standards remain unresolved. There is scant evidence about redeeming qualities as a teacher apart from uncorroborated and self-congratulatory claims.
The Applicant’s conduct is incompatible with that required of a member of the teaching profession. This is not a case where persuasive insight is shown, remorse expressed about past conduct, or where character and reputational concerns have been displaced by a sufficiently long period of law-abiding and professional behaviour. The Applicant has not taught since leaving Australia in early 2013 and did not advance evidence about her current fitness to teach. She instead invoked inapt analogies, perceived slights, a revisionist narrative, and other factors of questionable relevance. Her evidence does not inspire confidence about a future willingness to remain law-abiding or comply with professional disclosure obligations if registration is reinstated. The Tribunal found aspects of her evidence less than forthright and, in the case of testimony about being a lawyer, enlivening concerns about a possible breach of s 118 of the ART Act.
The evidence supports a conclusion that the Applicant is not currently fit to teach. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied in all the circumstances that her teaching registration should be reinstated.
DECISION
The reviewable decision is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 30 (thirty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of Senior Member A.A. Nikolic, AM CSC
..................[SGD]...............................................
Associate
Dated: 20 June 2025
Date of hearing: 11 June 2025 Applicant: Self-represented Counsel for the Respondent: J P Stoller Solicitor for the Respondent: Victorian Institute of Teaching
0
12
0