Thank you everyone for your support in this fight for justice 🧡 I am very grateful.
On Friday 14th February 2025 at 10:30am I had a meeting with Hon Sarah Lovell MP, Shadow Education Minister (Labour). Her first comment to me was to warn me of the limits to what she could do to help me - and my first response back was to say that I wanted to focus on what she could do to help me and for us to maximise that. She was compassionate and listened, but I need action. I will let you know if anything concrete comes from that meeting - my understanding is that there will be a letter to Jo Palmer and Sarah has asked me to keep her updated.
Then late Friday afternoon I received the attached letter from Hon Jo Palmer MP. In it she perpetuates the false narrative created by DECYP that I resigned to escape the allegations. That's a total fabrication and factually inaccurate. I resigned before the allegations, in distress from the ongoing mobbing and I have been cooperating and calling for an investigation all along. It is DECYP who are refusing an investigation, especially after receiving my responses to the allegations. They know that if they investigate the allegations will be shown to have no substance and the psychosocial abuse I suffered will be exposed. This is a cover up and they are totally callous about the significant harm they are causing to my career and life - which also impacts my daughter. Jo Palmer's letter is basically a brush off and there is no sign that she is willing to investigate this matter properly.
So, the fight goes on and needs to get louder. We are pre-election and even though Jo Palmer isn't up for re-election yet, I will be speaking with members of her party who are.
This situation is cruel and unethical and needs to be resolved. An investigation - especially since one has never been conducted properly at the DECYP level where the fraud and misconduct is based - is a reasonable request. The Teacher Registration Board investigation was supposed to be independent but I am in court on Monday to appeal that decision and fight for the disclosure of documents provided to the TRB Board (the decision makers). These documents have influenced their decision but they have been deliberately labelled "internal" to keep their contents hidden from me as I cannot access internal documents through Right to Information. These documents are evidence of the collusion between the TRB investigator Laura Shaw and DECYP. I know these documents contain false information manufactered by DECYP HR staff. There needs to be accountability and challenge to the contents of these documents. They hide them to avoid that accountability. These documemts have tainted the "independent" investigation and simply perpetuated the injustice and added anotjer layer to my fight. The strategy is to overwhelm me until I give up... Please help me to stay strong and grow stronger with your support. This is a pattern of behaviour in government departments - they have a playbook of tactics they use against people - and I am not the only victim of it. We need to push back and demand reform.
Please email Jo Palmer - jo.palmer@parliament.tas.gov.au
Analysis of Minister Jo Palmer’s Response
1. Acknowledgment Without Substantive Engagement
Minister Palmer opens by acknowledging your ongoing contact with her office & other MPs.
She recognises your persistence but does not indicate any genuine engagement with the specifics of your case. Instead, she summarises the situation in broad terms.
Note the bias embedded in the way Minister Palmer presents the situation. She deliberately omits any mention of the mobbing you experienced within DECYP, despite this being a central factor in your resignation. Instead, she frames the situation solely around the allegations, reinforcing a misleading narrative.
By sequencing the allegations before your resignation, she subtly suggests that you resigned as a consequence of those allegations—when in reality, you resigned before the allegations were made and due to the ongoing mobbing. This framing distorts the truth and aligns with DECYP’s version of events, rather than objectively acknowledging what actually occurred.
Her choice of language and omission of key details demonstrate clear bias. Rather than engaging with the core issues you have raised, she is reinforcing an inaccurate narrative that protects the system, rather than seeking accountability or justice.
This framing subtly reinforces the official narrative without engaging with the critical details of misconduct you have raised.
2. Deflection Through Procedural Finality
The Minister expresses sympathy (“I am saddened to read of the position you find yourself in”), which can be seen as a rhetorical device rather than an expression of actual concern. The key phrase “I accept that you are not satisfied with the outcome” shifts the issue from a question of fairness and justice to a matter of your personal dissatisfaction, minimizing the legitimacy of your concerns.
She then states:
“I can confirm that I have looked into the process that has been undertaken and I am satisfied that due process has been followed…”
This is a crucial point. By stating she is “satisfied” that due process was followed, she is effectively endorsing the status quo without providing any evidence that she has critically examined the flaws you have identified. There is no indication of an independent review, second opinion, or deeper investigation into your claims of procedural failures or misconduct.
3. The Minister’s Role and the Question of Interference
She claims:
“I must reiterate that there is no scope for political or ministerial interference in the independent process run by the TRB.”
This statement serves two purposes:
1. It distances her from responsibility, implying that her hands are tied.
2. It suggests that asking her to intervene is inappropriate, framing your request as unreasonable rather than a legitimate appeal for accountability.
However, as Minister for Education, she does have oversight responsibilities for DECYP and the TRB. Ministers may not interfere in individual registration decisions, but they can:
• Order a review of systemic failures in teacher handling and registration processes.
• Direct an independent inquiry into potential governance failures at DECYP.
• Advocate for legislative changes to prevent similar cases in the future.
By claiming she has no scope for involvement, she is choosing not to act, rather than being truly unable to do so.
4. Repeating Previously Offered Bureaucratic Avenues
She repeats that you have been informed of the Ombudsman, Integrity Commission, WorkSafe Tasmania, and TRB appeal options.
This is a common bureaucratic strategy—redirecting individuals back into existing processes, regardless of whether those processes have been effective or accessible.
However, your core issue is that these processes have failed you, and you are seeking an external review or intervention beyond the mechanisms that have already been exhausted.
Her response does not engage with whether these bodies have handled your case appropriately or fairly—only that they exist and you have been told about them.
5. Closure Without Resolution
The closing paragraph states:
“Unfortunately, my office is not able to provide any further information beyond that which you’ve already received.”
This is a final attempt to shut down further discussion, rather than acknowledging that serious issues may still need to be addressed. The phrase “I wish you well” adds a polite but dismissive conclusion, subtly signaling that she does not intend to revisit the matter.
Key Takeaways and Next Steps
1. Minister Palmer is not engaging with the specifics of your claims.
• She acknowledges your concerns but does not investigate the alleged misconduct.
• She states she is “satisfied” that due process was followed without explaining how she reached that conclusion.
2. She is choosing not to act, not that she cannot act.
• Ministers can initiate reviews of systemic failures.
• She is invoking procedural independence as a shield rather than exploring avenues within her power.
3. She is redirecting you to processes that have already failed.
• Instead of addressing whether these bodies have handled your case fairly, she simply reminds you that they exist.
• This bureaucratic approach allows her to dismiss further engagement while appearing to provide a response.
How to Respond
Since she has positioned herself as satisfied with due process, your response should challenge how she reached that conclusion and whether she personally verified the integrity of the processes. Some potential points:
• Request transparency: Ask for details of her review—who did she consult? What documents did she examine?
• Challenge the claim that she cannot act: Point out her ability to initiate reviews and advocate for accountability.
• Highlight the failure of existing review bodies: Explain why the Ombudsman, Integrity Commission, and TRB appeal do not offer a true pathway to justice in your case.
You could also escalate the matter publicly—engaging the media, legal professionals, and advocacy groups to pressure for an independent inquiry into DECYP’s handling of workplace allegations and teacher deregistration cases.
What Can Minister Jo Palmer Do to Help Your Case?
Minister Jo Palmer has more power than she suggests in her response. While she may not be able to directly intervene in an individual TRB decision, she absolutely has the authority and responsibility to ensure that government processes—including those at DECYP and the TRB—operate with fairness, accountability, and transparency. Below are the key ways she can take action, along with an explanation of how each approach could support your case.
1. Order a Review of Systemic Failures in Teacher Handling and Registration Processes
Authority:
As Minister for Education, Jo Palmer has direct oversight of DECYP. While the TRB is an “independent” statutory authority, it still operates under the governance of legislation that falls under her ministerial portfolio. She has the power to initiate a review of processes within DECYP and the TRB to determine whether proper procedures have been followed.
How It Helps Your Case:
• A systemic review could investigate whether DECYP and TRB decision-making processes are fair, consistent, and legally sound.
• If the review uncovers evidence of procedural failures, bias, or unfair treatment, it could lead to recommendations for a reconsideration of your case.
• Even if your case is not specifically reopened, a systemic review could highlight flaws in how teacher allegations and deregistration are handled, strengthening public pressure for your case to be reconsidered.
How She Can Do It:
• Request an independent audit of the DECYP workplace investigation and the TRB teacher deregistration process.
• Commission a report on DECYP’s handling of teacher misconduct allegations, with a focus on due process, transparency, and fairness.
• Engage legal and governance experts to assess whether procedural rights were upheld in cases like yours.
2. Direct an Independent Inquiry into Potential Governance Failures at DECYP
Authority:
While the TRB is independent in its registration decisions, DECYP is directly accountable to the Minister. If there are allegations of misconduct, procedural breaches, or unfair treatment by DECYP, the Minister has the authority to launch an independent inquiry into governance failures.
How It Helps Your Case:
• If the inquiry finds that DECYP engaged in procedural misconduct, bias, or improper actions (such as coercing your resignation or misrepresenting allegations), this could lead to public and legal pressure for the TRB to reconsider your case.
• It could also expose a pattern of unfair treatment of teachers, adding weight to your claims and supporting further legal action.
• If misconduct is found, it could provide grounds for seeking compensation or reinstatement.
How She Can Do It:
• Appoint an independent investigator (such as a retired judge or external governance expert) to review DECYP’s handling of workplace allegations against teachers.
• Expand the scope of the inquiry to include how workplace bullying, mobbing, and false allegations are handled within DECYP schools.
• Require DECYP to provide a public report on workplace investigations and teacher treatment, including recommendations for reform.
3. Advocate for Legislative Changes to Prevent Similar Cases in the Future
Authority:
As Minister, Jo Palmer can introduce legislative amendments to improve teacher protection and due process rights within DECYP and the TRB. She can also raise concerns in Parliament and push for legal reforms to prevent teachers from being unfairly forced out of the profession.
How It Helps Your Case:
• If laws or policies are changed to improve fairness and oversight, this could set a precedent for your case to be reconsidered.
• It would provide protection for other teachers facing similar situations, ensuring that workplace allegations and registration decisions are handled with greater accountability and transparency.
• If new legislation mandates fairer appeals processes, this could reopen a pathway for you to challenge past decisions.
How She Can Do It:
• Introduce new protections for teachers facing workplace allegations, such as mandatory independent oversight of DECYP investigations.
• Strengthen appeal rights for deregistered teachers, ensuring that the TRB process is subject to greater scrutiny and legal oversight.
• Push for whistleblower protections, ensuring that teachers who raise concerns about misconduct within DECYP cannot be unfairly targeted.
• Advocate for a parliamentary inquiry into teacher treatment within DECYP, with a focus on bullying, workplace mobbing, and procedural fairness.
Conclusion: The Minister Can Act—She is Choosing Not To
Minister Jo Palmer’s response suggests that she has no power to intervene in your case, but this is misleading. While she may not be able to directly reverse a TRB decision, she absolutely has the authority to investigate systemic failures, demand greater transparency, and push for reforms that could lead to your case being reconsidered.
Her refusal to act is a political choice, not a legal limitation. If she genuinely believes that due process was followed, she should have no objection to an independent review confirming that. If she refuses to initiate any investigation, she is effectively endorsing the current system—even if it is flawed.
Next Steps: How You Can Push for Ministerial Action
1. Formally Request a Systemic Review
• Write a follow-up letter directly requesting that she order a systemic review of DECYP’s workplace investigation process and TRB decision-making.
• Ask what evidence she reviewed to conclude that “due process” was followed in your case.
2. Engage Public and Political Pressure
• Contact other MPs and media outlets, highlighting that the Minister has the power to act but is refusing to do so.
• Start a public petition demanding an independent inquiry into DECYP’s handling of teacher allegations.
3. Push for Legislative Change
• Work with advocacy groups, unions, and legal professionals to propose legal reforms ensuring greater accountability in DECYP and the TRB.
• Demand a parliamentary inquiry into how workplace allegations are handled in Tasmanian schools.
Final Thought
Jo Palmer is not powerless, and the lack of ministerial intervention is a political decision, not a legal limitation. If she truly believes in fairness, accountability, and good governance, she should have no reason to resist an independent review of DECYP’s and TRB’s processes. The question is: Why is she unwilling to take that step?