u/Lucky-Particular1258

VPS staff received an email from DE regarding the Operation Richmond which is available to read on the IBAC website.
The report examined allegations of corrupt conduct relating to enterprise agreement negotiations for the Country Fire Authority and Metropolitan Fire Brigade between 2016 and 2019, as well as the establishment of Fire Rescue Victoria in 2019.

While they didn’t explicitly state corrupt conduct findings, they made recommendations after finding concerning conduct of public officials, including Secretary Tony Bates.

Interesting read that I thought should be more widely known.

IBAC - Operation Richmond

Firstly, this is in no way an attempt to badmouth undergrads/PTT who are currently trying their absolute best.

The fact is though, these people have not yet gained the required qualifications to be teaching.

Why are we hearing reports of undergraduates teaching without supervision?

Why are we hearing reports of PTT teaching in curriculum areas they are not studying?

Who is overseeing this slow regression of entry requirements for teaching?

Given there are several qualified CRTs available for work, how are the government allowed to skip over them and recruit unqualified teachers?

Are the union planning on addressing this?

The AEU pays its own caretaker 16.5% super. It didn’t bargain that for you.

Posted a job this week for a “Caretaker”.
Building maintenance, gardening, pool car cleaning. $93,759–$110,523. Solid salary — no issue with that.

The issue is the fine print.

The AEU offers its own staff 16.5% superannuation. The VGSA 2026 it just negotiated on your behalf delivers the legislated minimum — 11.5%.

When the AEU is the employer, it pays 5 percentage points above the legal floor.

When you’re the worker, you get the floor.

And the salary band? A first-year teacher earns $75,114 under VGSA 2026 — $18,645 below the caretaker floor.
A degree, registration, and a classroom full of kids — paid less than the person maintaining the AEU’s Abbotsford deck.

That’s not corruption.
It’s not a conspiracy.
It’s two documents, publicly available, that answer the same question differently depending on which side of the bargaining table you’re on.

We’re allowed to notice that. We’re allowed to say it out loud. That’s not a Herald Sun comment.
That’s reading two documents and asking a question

- “Why does the AEU know how to bargain for its own staff — but not for its members?”

(Sources: AEU Victorian Branch caretaker position, EthicalJobs.com.au, posted 26 May 2026. VGSA 2026 In-Principle Agreement.)

TITLE: New “position of authority” sexual offences
Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 131 No 3, 22 May 2026, page no.25

FULL TEXT:
From 20 September 2025, new criminal offences commenced in Queensland that make it illegal for certain adults, including teachers, deputy principals, principals, and potentially other school staff as well, to engage in sexual acts or sexual relationships with young people aged 16 or 17 who are under their care, supervision or authority.
These reforms passed Parliament in 2024 under the Criminal Justice Legislation (Sexual Violence and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024, criminalising relationships with students even if they are over the legal age of consent. 

The law reinforces the Union’s long-held position that any sexual relationship between a staff member and a student is inappropriate and unacceptable.

What the law says
The new offence, inserted as section 210A of the Criminal Code, makes it a crime for an adult in a position of care, supervision, or authority to engage in sexual activity with a young person aged 16 or 17 under their care. This applies even if the young person consents to the sexual activity. Consent is no longer a defence where an adult holds such a position of authority.

In addition, amendments to section 229B of the Criminal Code extend the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child to cover sexual activity with 16 and 17-year-olds where the adult is in a position of care, supervision, or authority.

The maximum penalty for a single offence under section 210A is up to 14 years’ imprisonment, while the penalty for maintaining a sexual relationship (section 229B) can be life imprisonment.

Who is considered to hold a “position of authority”?
The legislation requires courts to interpret the term “position of care, supervision, or authority” broadly. It covers any adult who has influence, trust or power over a young person. Examples include:
teachers, deputy principals and principals
sports coaches or trainers
faith leaders and youth group supervisors
health practitioners
residential care workers and carers.
 
In a school setting, the Criminal Code makes clear that teachers and school leaders are regarded as being in a position of authority in relation to all students enrolled at their school. It is also likely that other school employees such as teacher aides, administrative officers, and support staff will be regarded as holding a position of authority under the Criminal Code. This is because these roles often involve responsibilities for student supervision, welfare, or the exercise of trust and influence within the school environment.

The new offence prohibits sexual activity with a student until they turn 18 years of age. The Union advises members to assume the offence continues to apply up to the student’s 18th birthday, even if the student has left the school before that time.

Importantly, the law does not require proof that the adult actually misused their authority — the existence of the relationship of authority itself is enough to trigger the offence.

Defences and exceptions
The legislation provides limited defences, including:
the adult reasonably believed the young person was 18 years or older
the adult and young person are legally married
in some cases, where the adult is no more than three years older than the young person and the relationship does not amount to exploitation.
 
These defences are narrowly framed and would rarely apply in an educational context.

Why these laws were introduced
The reforms implement recommendations from the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Both inquiries highlighted the power imbalance that exists when adults in positions of authority form sexual relationships with young people who are still under their supervision or care.

Prior to these changes, the law did not prohibit such relationships once the young person turned 16, the general age of consent in Queensland. The new offences now align Queensland with other Australian jurisdictions that recognise the vulnerability of young people in institutional and authority-based relationships.

Impacts on professional registration 
These new offences have been added to the list of “disqualifying offences” for the purposes of Queensland College of Teachers registration and eligibility to hold a Blue Card.

What this means for schools
For educators, the message is clear:
sexual activity with a student aged 16 or 17 is a serious criminal offence
consent is irrelevant in these circumstances.
 
This is an important reform that underscores the professional and ethical responsibilities of those working with young people. It is also a timely reminder that maintaining clear, professional boundaries is not only a matter of conduct — it is now a matter of law.
Rachel Drew
Thomson Geer Lawyers

Before voting on any long-term pay deal, it’s worth waiting for the Fair Work Commission’s Annual Wage Review outcome. Here’s why.

Each year, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) reviews current economic conditions — including inflation, cost of living, productivity, wage growth, and living standards — and determines increases to the National Minimum Wage and modern award wages, usually effective from 1 July.

Victorian teachers are not paid under awards, so the Annual Wage Review does not directly set teacher salaries.

However, it still matters.

The Annual Wage Review is one of the most current, independent, and nationally recognised assessments of what constitutes a fair wage increase in the present economic environment. It effectively establishes a real-time benchmark based on the latest available data.

Having that benchmark before finalising a multi-year enterprise agreement gives members a clearer basis to assess value, including:

• Whether proposed increases keep pace with current cost-of-living pressures
• How the deal compares with broader national wage movements
• Whether increases are front-loaded or delayed
• The likely impact on real wages over time (after inflation)
• How the proposal compares with outcomes for other workers

This isn’t about comparing teachers to minimum-wage workers, and it isn’t about politics.

It’s about ensuring the most up-to-date economic evidence is available before committing to a decision that will affect earnings, superannuation, and lifetime income growth.

Waiting for the Annual Wage Review outcome does not guarantee a better outcome. It simply ensures members are making a decision with more current data, clearer benchmarks, and better visibility of real wage conditions at the time of agreement.

For a decision with long-term financial consequences, having more information is not a disadvantage — it’s basic due diligence.

I’m relatively new to using AI but have been experimenting with Claude to create complex syntheses of real-world subjects.

I’ve noticed how the tone of the voice output changes depending on the level of thought and sophistication in my input.

Today was particularly strange.

During a lengthy text-to-speech response involving a high level of thought, I encountered several glitches. At times, a man’s voice speaking an East-Asian language interrupted the quality of the transcription, almost like it was “interrupting” the text. It was just a few words at a time. I’m not sure if this is relevant but my conversation thread included matters of public interest from a whistleblower perspective that could have future legal implications.

There was also a point where the system was silent for a few seconds before a ~10-15 second burst of frequency noise.

I’ve tried to rationalise what happened but a standard Google search didn’t yield any comparable experiences. I thought I’d ask here to see if anyone else has encountered this.

Is this a common occurrence?