❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice raises concerns about the Complaints Management Unit within the Department of Education, including costs, investigation procedures, safeguards, and fairness to accused teachers and school psychologists. The Minister responds by outlining the CMU's processes, legal obligations, and avenues for appeal.
AnsweredQoN 3034Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) what is the cost in dollars for the 2003 and 2004 education year of the operation of the Complaints Management Unit including the cost of the employment of relief teachers as required and cost of stress leave or sick leave whilst teachers are being investigated; (c) from where does the Complaints Management Unit derive it’s investigators and what is the criteria such people have to meet in order to be employed as investigators; (d) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the Complaints Management Unit cannot be used against targeted personnel; (e) is it possible to find a teacher or school psychologist ‘Guilty’ of an alleged offence on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(c) from where does the Complaints Management Unit derive it’s investigators and what is the criteria such people have to meet in order to be employed as investigators; (d) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the Complaints Management Unit cannot be used against targeted personnel; (e) is it possible to find a teacher or school psychologist ‘Guilty’ of an alleged offence on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(d) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the Complaints Management Unit cannot be used against targeted personnel; (e) is it possible to find a teacher or school psychologist ‘Guilty’ of an alleged offence on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(e) is it possible to find a teacher or school psychologist ‘Guilty’ of an alleged offence on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(a) 1 (b) The Complaints Management Unit (CMU) operational budget for the 2003-2004 financial year was $259 700. It is not possible to determine if relief teachers are engaged or sick leave is utilised as a consequence of CMU processes. (c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course. (d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(b) The Complaints Management Unit (CMU) operational budget for the 2003-2004 financial year was $259 700. It is not possible to determine if relief teachers are engaged or sick leave is utilised as a consequence of CMU processes. (c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course. (d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course. (d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(c) from where does the Complaints Management Unit derive it’s investigators and what is the criteria such people have to meet in order to be employed as investigators; (d) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the Complaints Management Unit cannot be used against targeted personnel; (e) is it possible to find a teacher or school psychologist ‘Guilty’ of an alleged offence on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(d) what safeguards are in place to ensure that the Complaints Management Unit cannot be used against targeted personnel; (e) is it possible to find a teacher or school psychologist ‘Guilty’ of an alleged offence on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(e) is it possible to find a teacher or school psychologist ‘Guilty’ of an alleged offence on the ‘balance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’; (f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(f) why is it that information pertaining to an accusation is not released to the accused in order for them to defend themselves against false accusations; (g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(g) why are teachers and school psychologists discriminated against in that, a person can make an allegation or accusation without ‘fear of reprisal’ that may affect the accused career terminally; (h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(h) how is it possible for a teacher to defend themselves against allegations if information regarding the alleged offence is not released to the teacher through Freedom of Information in order to ensure the accuser does not suffer from ‘fear of reprisal’; (i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(i) will the Director General or the Minister for Education be called to account for the breach of confidentiality in the release to the press of the name of one of the Department of Education personnel who is currently under investigation; and (j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(j) why is section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 in use against personnel who are under investigation for ‘alleged’ offences and allegations?
(a) 1 (b) The Complaints Management Unit (CMU) operational budget for the 2003-2004 financial year was $259 700. It is not possible to determine if relief teachers are engaged or sick leave is utilised as a consequence of CMU processes. (c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course. (d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(b) The Complaints Management Unit (CMU) operational budget for the 2003-2004 financial year was $259 700. It is not possible to determine if relief teachers are engaged or sick leave is utilised as a consequence of CMU processes. (c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course. (d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course. (d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. (e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(e) Yes (f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview. (g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission. (h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter. (i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(i) Not applicable. (j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
25 August 2004
Responded by
Minister for Education and Training
Response time
55 days
(a) 1
(b) The Complaints Management Unit (CMU) operational budget for the 2003-2004 financial year was $259 700. It is not possible to determine if relief teachers are engaged or sick leave is utilised as a consequence of CMU processes.
(c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course.
(d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission.
(e) Yes
(f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview.
(g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission.
(h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter.
(i) Not applicable.
(j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
(b) The Complaints Management Unit (CMU) operational budget for the 2003-2004 financial year was $259 700. It is not possible to determine if relief teachers are engaged or sick leave is utilised as a consequence of CMU processes.
(c) Investigators are derived from two sources. Firstly, a tender is issued bi-annually through normal government contractual processes. A panel assess the suitability of the applicants in relation to a selection criteria and a panel of investigators is appointed. The criteria for selection is: ? the resource capacity and scale of operation to deliver services; ? demonstrated experience in investigating or conducting inquiries into allegations of breaches of statutory provisions or disciplinary offences; ? a clear demonstrated understanding of the task; ? skill and expertise of key personnel relevant to the tender ? knowledge and understanding of human resources/industrial relations issues and how they relate to disciplinary matters; ? knowledge and understanding of the public sector; and ? high level ethics, integrity, honesty, professionalism, accountability and commitment. Secondly, Managers, District Operations (MDO) in each of the Department?s District Education Offices are trained in investigation techniques. Subject to their availability, these officers undertake suitable investigations. In order for an MDO to be appointed, they must have undergone the investigator training course.
(d) The Department has a responsibility to progress all allegations of a disciplinary nature that on the surface appear not to be vexatious or trivial. The Complaints Management Unit act in strict accordance with relevant legislation, in relation to employees subject to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (the Act) and Department policies. All members of the Unit comply with the Western Australian Public Sector Code of Ethics and section 9 of the Act. The Corruption and Crime Commission have a monitoring role and receive copies of all discipline investigations. In addition, complainants have the right to raise any concerns relating to Department processes with the Ombudsman and respondents have rights of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission.
(e) Yes
(f) Section 81(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 requires the Department to provide the nature of an allegation to a respondent. This information must be specific enough for a respondent to be able to reply. It is not necessary, for the purposes of natural justice, for a copy of the originating complaint to be forwarded to the respondent as the letter from the Department provides the necessary specifics with respect to an allegation and it is these specifics that are either proven or not proven. The respondent has the opportunity to furnish his or her view of the matter both in writing and through interview.
(g) The Department when undertaking a disciplinary process does not discriminate against employees. Allegations that may constitute a breach of discipline that are not vexatious or trivial must be progressed by the Department. Throughout this process the respondent is provided with several opportunities to provide evidence in response to the allegation. Facts will be established through an investigation and any adverse finding is made known to the respondent with a copy of the investigation report for them to provide additional comment. This process is the same for all employees of the Department. Respondents have a right to appeal aspects of a disciplinary process to the Industrial Relations Commission.
(h) Whilst certain information is protected under the Freedom of Information Act as it relates to a disciplinary process, all information that is relevant to the allegation is released to the respondent at the commencement of the process, at which time they are provided with an opportunity to respond. At the conclusion of a process, respondents have the right to appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission and through this process may apply for discovery of all documents held by the Department in relation to the disciplinary matter.
(i) Not applicable.
(j) The Department has a duty of care to protect the interests of all students in its care. Section 240 of the School Education Act 1999 enables the Department to remove employees who may constitute a risk to the safety and welfare of students. The temporary relocation of officers is not intended to pre-judge the outcome of the disciplinary process, however is required to protect the duty of care owed by the Department to students.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.