Dear Victorian Institute of Teaching,

Please explain the following breaches of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.

(1) I hold a Bachelor of Engineering (Hons) 1985, Bachelor of Commerce (Economics), 2002, Bachelor of Arts (Mathematics), 2003, Bachelor of Accounting, 2004, Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary), 2005.

(2) I have never been accused, let alone convicted, of sexual abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse, using, possessing or selling drugs, violence, weapons or any anti-social behaviour.

(3) I registered as a teacher with the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT) in November 2005.

(4) In 2006, 2007. I worked at Ilim College (VIC) for $40,000 pa (2006), $50,000 pa (2007). At the time the minimum legal payable salaries were $44,783 and $53,085. This was wage theft by Ilim College.
In 2008, I worked at St Paul's Anglican Grammar School (VIC).
In 2009, 2010. I worked at the remote aboriginal community, Wadeye (NT).
In 2011, Murray Bridge High School (SA) and in 2012, I worked at Hamilton College (VIC) for $70,000 pa.
From January 2013 through March 2015 I worked overseas.
In April-May 2015, I worked at Traralgon College for one term only (VIC) before resigning and resuming my engineering career. From June-November 25th 2015, I worked as an engineering at AIR CTI.

(5) An individual under an Act cannot rise above the power given to them by that Act. If there is no power given in the Act to perform a function, a task or to delegate then the individual to has not been given the authority to do so. A stream cannot rise higher than its source, eg Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1. No authority given means no authority to act.

For example, if the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (ETRA 2006) does not confer on the Chief Executive Officer (CEO of the VIT in 2005/2006) any powers that are not described within the Act then the CEO cannot act beyond the powers so described.

(6) Section 2.6.22 states the CEO of the Institute may request the Chief Commissioner of Police to give to the CEO information concerning the criminal record. The Act does not give the CEO permission to delegate this power.

(7) On Thursday, 25 June 2015 4:27pm, Mr Stewart Williams, the Investigations Officer of the VIT, breached section 2.6.22 of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006 by contacting Senior Sergeant Walker, [email address]', '[email address]’, CC: Andrew Sealey at Victoria Police.

(8) On the same occasion, in a further breach of section 2.6.22 of the ETRA 2006 and a breach of the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 (PDP 2014), Mr Williams sought to be advised if any intelligence/warrants the police may have in respect of myself and, for an unknown reason, he also mentions that I had recently returned to Australia from the United Kingdom and the Peoples’ Republic of China.

(9) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 I confirm the CEO of the VIT, Ms Saba, may make a request to the Chief Commissioner of Police for information concerning a criminal record without the consent of that registered teacher but (s)he must give notice of the request to that teacher. This was never done.

(10) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAT) while investigating me for a tribunal hearing. This is outside the jurisdiction and expertise of the VIT.

(11) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) while investigating me in relation to a potential tribunal hearing. This is outside the jurisdiction and expertise of the VIT.

(12) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Tasmanian Department of Justice, Registrar of Births,Deaths and Marriages (BDM) while investigating me in relation to a potential tribunal hearing. This is outside the jurisdiction and expertise of the VIT.

(13) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the Victorian Institute of Teaching contacted the Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation, Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages while investigating me in relation to a potential tribunal hearing. This is outside the jurisdiction and expertise of the VIT.

(14) The validity and source of the material sourced from the DFAT, DIBP, Tasmanian BDM and Victorian BDM was hidden from the tribunal hearing and the panel members were led to believe it had been legitimately acquired. The material so presented was clearly prejudicial, biased and wrong, with the obvious result being that I did not receive natural justice or procedural fairness. Failure by the VIT to ensure the disciplinary hearing was conducted under the rules of natural justice is a breach of Section 2.6.48 (d) of the ETRA 2006.

(15) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the VIT sought and obtained from St Paul’s Anglican Grammar School, Warragul, Victoria my employment records. It is not within the jurisdiction of the VIT to seek and obtain my employment records from a previous employer.

(16) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the VIT sought and obtained from the Teacher Registration Board of the Northern Territory my registration records. It is not within the jurisdiction of the VIT to seek and obtain my employment records from a previous employer who is located interstate.

(17) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the VIT sought and obtained from the Teacher Registration Board of South Australia my registration records. This is a matter for the Teacher Registration Board of South Australia and not the VIT.

(18) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the VIT sought and obtained from Murray Bridge High School, Murray Bridge, South Australia my employment records. It is not within the jurisdiction of the VIT to seek and obtain my employment records from a previous employer who is located interstate.

(19) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the VIT sought and obtained my Chengdu (sic) Shishi Cambridge A Level Centre, China my employment records. It is not within the jurisdiction of the VIT to seek and obtain my employment records from a previous employer who is located overseas.

(20) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B the VIT sought and obtained my Traralgon College, Traralgon, Victoria employment records. It is not within the jurisdiction of the VIT to seek and obtain my employment records from a previous employer.

(21) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and the IPPs of the PDP 2014 the VIT sought and obtained a copy of the title and street plan of my residential property in South Australia as well as a copy of mortgage payments from the lender (La Trobe Finance) and the mortgage discharge confirmation paper. It is not within the jurisdiction of the VIT to seek and obtain these records.

(22) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.21B and the IPPs of the PDP 2014 the VIT contacted Traralgon College, a previous employer, and instructed the school principal to speak with all teachers so as to obtain the make of my car and its registration details. The VIT are not to approach former employers and it is not within the jurisdiction of the VIT to seek and obtain these records at all and certainly nt in this fashion..

(23) In a breach of the ETRA 2006 Section 2.6.48 (d) the tribunal panel chosen by the VIT were clearly prejudicial and biased as well as being inappropriate choices to hear my disciplinary hearing. The panel members chosen and their conduct show actual and apprehended bias.

(24) In a lack of due diligence and a breach of the duty of care an accuser owes the accused Mr Williams erroneously concluded my academic transcript to be a false document despite the university stating it appeared authentic. Mr Williams did not contact Monash University, Adelaide University or the University of South Australia where I also hold tertiary or post graduate qualifications as verification of my qualifications.

In doing so Mr Williams biased and prejudiced my disciplinary hearing in a breach of Section 2.6.48 (d) of the Education and Training Reform Act 2006.

(25) In August 2015 I was notified that the VIT wished to hold a hearing in regard to my November 2005 registration. I requested a six week adjournment 5 days prior to the hearing. The request was due to my disability, would have been at the cost of three phone calls and was reasonable in all the circumstances. In a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 the Victorian Institute of Teaching refused this request.

(26) Mr Geoff Coates, Ms Marilyn Mooney, Ms Anne Farrelly and Mr Rowland Richardson are not medically qualified yet they deemed asthma – a recognised disability – was too trivial a reason for an adjournment and it was refused. This is a breach of their duty of care to me as the accused, is blatant discrimination and is a breach of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010.

(27) A teacher who is the subject of the hearing is entitled to be present, to make submissions and to be represented and by denying me my right to attend my disciplinary hearing the VIT breached Section 2.6.45 (b) of the ETRA 2006.

(28) As I was discriminated against by the VIT so as to be unable to attend my tribunal hearing I was denied natural justice. This is a breach of Section 2.6.48 (d) of the ETRA 2006. Due to discrimination I was unable to present to the tribunal panel members the following,

(i) My 'Fitness to Teach',
(ii) My excellent employment record,
(iii) My academic qualifications (Williams erroneously declared them false – refer Lamb and Corcoran statements),
(iv) My physical health (refer Lamb and Corcoran statements),
(v) My mental health (refer Lamb and Corcoran statements),
(vi) evidence going as to rehabilitation,
(vii) My remorse,
(viii) My participation in the conduct of the investigation and hearing,
(ix) reasons for the delay,
(x) My financial and family situation,
(xi) My behaviour and candour,
(xii) any explanation for the my behaviour,
(xiii) the benefits of further training and any conditions that should be imposed.

All of which are to be taken into account by the tribunal panel.

(29) In a breach of the duty of care the VIT and the tribunal panel so selected assessed me under the wrong legal test in that my registration was reviewed against the ETRA 2006. This Act was not proclaimed until 1st July 2007 and gives the VIT no authority or jurisdiction to judge a matter in November 2005. If the VIT wishes to assess a matter in November 2005 then it must do so under the Victorian Institute of Teaching Act 2001 (VIT 2001).

Further, if the VIT wish to review my November 2005 registration then they must not only review my registration under the Victorian Institute of Teaching Act 2001 but also by the prevailing attitudes of 2005.

By failing to act in this way the VIT has breached the common law principal of retrospective laws.

(30) During the tribunal hearing, in a jurisdictional error and thus a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness, the VIT used the wrong legal test. The panel referenced the Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland v Shirtcliffe [2014] QSC 179, and quoted directly – in error as it was not a correct precedent – to justify an immediate de-registration.

(31) During the tribunal hearing, in a jurisdictional error and thus a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness, the VIT used the wrong legal test. The panel referenced the Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland v Shirtcliffe [2014] QSC 179, and quoted directly – in error as it was as it was a different offence – to justify an immediate de-registration.

(32) During the tribunal hearing, in a jurisdictional error and thus a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness, the VIT used the wrong legal test. The panel, despite having full knowledge of, and despite the chairperson, Ms Mooney, having made reference to it in numerous previous tribunal hearings, completely ignored the precedent Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of N.S.W. (1957) 97 CLR 279 and decided on a decision to de-register me, based on alleged evidence that was outside the jurisdiction of the VIT to obtain and review, before any conviction. This was in addition to the VIT also discriminating against me to ensure I was not able to attend the hearing – when, if I had been able to attend the tribunal hearing, I could have challenged and corrected the legal errors so described in (28), (29) and (30).

(33) The role of the VIT disciplinary hearing is to protect the public. Immediate de-registration was a massively excessive and inappropriate punishment and overreaction for Category C conduct – especially as I was not even teaching at the time. This is a breach of my right to procedural fairness and natural justice and thus Section 2.6.48 (d) of the ETRA 2006.

(34) No tribunal panel member has signed the issued disciplinary decision and the VIT admit that a Decision with all panel member original signatures does not exist.

This is a breach of their duty of care to the Victorian public, a breach of their Charter entrusted to them by the Victorian parliament, a breach of their duty of care to me as an accused, a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness (Section 2.6.48 (d) of the ETRA 2006) as well as a breach of Section 83A, Falsification of Documents, and Section 320 of the Crimes Act 1958.

(35) At the end of the tribunal hearing the VIT continued to investigate and collected untested and uncollaborated “evidence” in beach of the Education and Training Act 2006.

Yours faithfully,

Julian Taylor

Dear Victorian Institute of Teaching,

I am yet to receive a reply to my request The corruption of the Victorian Institute of Teaching.

By law, you should have replied promptly and by July 30, 2021.

So why have you attempted to avoid abiding by the law?

Yours faithfully,

Julian Taylor