TEACHER SEEKS ORDER TO COMPEL THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
Taylor v Minister for Education [2021] VSC 23 (1 February 2021)
This case involves the plaintiff seeking orders in the nature of mandamus to compel the defendant-Minister to investigate the alleged misconduct of a registered teacher and by an employee of the Victorian Teaching Institute.
Facts:
In this proceeding, Mr Taylor (plaintiff) seeks an order compelling the Minister for Education to investigate the fitness to teach of Mr Taylor’s former wife, Khaleda Barr, and to examine and respond to evidence provided by Mr Taylor about that matter. He also seeks an order compelling the Minister to investigate his claims of discrimination and victimisation against Ms Barr and Stewart Williams, a compliance officer with the Victorian Institute of Teaching (VIT).
Before commencing the proceeding, Mr Taylor had complained to both the VIT and the Minister that Ms Barr had provided false evidence to the VIT, was of bad character, and was unfit to be a teacher. He also complained that Mr Williams had colluded with Ms Barr to conceal her prior knowledge of Mr Taylor’s criminal history. The VIT responded on behalf of the Minister, declining to investigate the complaints, which prompted Mr Taylor to bring this proceeding against the Minister
Mr Taylor’s argument was based on the Minister’s constitutional responsibility for matters within the education portfolio. He submitted that Under s.85 of the Public Administration Act, the Council of the VIT is accountable to the Minister for the exercise of its functions, and the Minister is responsible to Parliament (and to the people of Victoria) in respect of the exercise by the VIT of its functions.
The Minister submitted that this argument misconstrued the Public Administration Act, and fundamentally misunderstood the role of the Supreme Court in relation to a Minister’s accountability to Parliament under s.85(2).
Issue: Does the Minister have any power to investigate or to order an investigation?
Law:
- Civil Procedure Act 2010 ss 62, 63
- Public Administration Act 2004 s 85
Analysis:
The court accepts the submission of the Minister. It may be accepted that the Minister is responsible to the Parliament of Victoria for the exercise by the VIT of its functions, including its function of investigating the fitness to teach of registered teachers. However, the responsibility of a Minister to Parliament is a form of political control, exercised by Parliament alone, based on parliamentary political value judgments. The Court has no role to play in this form of political control.
The Court’s judicial review jurisdiction is to determine the lawfulness of an exercise of administrative power conferred by the legislature on the executive. As discussed, that jurisdiction extends to compelling the performance of certain public legal duties, by an order in the nature of mandamus. In this case, Parliament has given the Minister no power or duty to investigate a teacher’s fitness to teach, or to direct the VIT to do so. There is therefore no real prospect of Mr Taylor obtaining the orders that he seeks against the Minister, compelling the Minister to investigate his complaints about Ms Barr’s fitness to teach.
Because the Minister has no public legal duty to investigate Mr Taylor’s allegations against Ms Barr and Mr Williams, he has no duty to provide reasons for not doing so. There is no express statutory duty for the Minister to provide reasons for exercising his limited powers under Pt 2.6 of the Education Act. Even if the Minister did have a duty of the kind claimed by Mr Taylor, there is no general duty at common law to provide reasons for an administrative decision.
Conclusion: Hence, the proceeding is summarily dismissed.
