Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher NSP [2023] QCAT 105

Date: 17 March 2023
Court/Tribunal: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Judicial Officer/Tribunal Member: Senior Member Aughterson
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 8, 13, 26.
Rights Considered: Right to protection of families and children.
Other Legislation: Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), s 7, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 285, 285AA; Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 66; Queensland College of Teachers v EDC [2019] QCAT 144; Queensland College of Teachers v LDW [2017] QCAT; and Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32.
Keywords: Children and Families, DV, Child protection; Education, Training and Employment.

The Applicant sought a continued suspension of the Respondent’s teacher registration on the basis that the Respondent posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. In ordering that the Respondent’s submissions against the decision be set aside, the Tribunal noted that the protection of children generally took precedence over the interests of the teacher.

Queensland College of Teachers applied for a continued suspension of the Respondent as a teacher, pursuant to sections 49 and 50(5) of the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005 (Qld), on the basis that they reasonably believed the teacher posed an unacceptable risk of harm to children. The Respondent was issued with a domestic violence order and was subsequently charged in relation to two breaches, one of which involved pushing her 13-year-old daughter and punching her once. Her daughter did not sustain any injuries.

The Respondent submitted that suspension without pay would limit her ability to care for and support her children, with reference to the rights of children and families protected by section 26 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

In considering this submission, the Tribunal observed that “the protection of children, generally, takes precedence over the interests of the teacher” and noted that human rights can be subject to limits in accordance with section 13 of the HR Act: at [14]. The Tribunal did not consider the way in which the rights of the applicant’s children may be limited by the decision and did not address its own obligations under the HR Act as a public entity where acting in an administrative capacity in its original jurisdiction.

View the judgement: Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher NSP [2023] QCAT 105