Palmergate

• DECYP whistleblowers claim colleagues, former principal(s) linked to child sexual abuse reallocated and promoted within government department, some connected to “prevention programs” and the COI. Concerns of potential “ratlines” emerge.
• The Commission of Inquiry issued suppression orders in 2021 on the identities of alleged child sex offenders and those who engaged in misconduct around children.
• We have identified multiple individuals. The suppression orders prevent our outlet from publishing those identities.
• Key reforms remain unimplemented despite “confident progress” from the government.
• The Education Minister and Department have not commented on the matter or have rejected our findings.

---

Government whistleblowers and former teachers have painted a bleak portrait of misconduct within Tasmania’s education department (DECYP). It reveals how the independent commission of inquiry into child sex abuse has seen the system become compromised from within, dishing out further issues in a state with an already troubled education system.

The disclosure came from current and former DECYP employees and preliminary works from our outlet corroborating public facing material which lines up with the claims made.

Through rigorous cross examination our outlet was able to confirm the identity of a former school principal known as “Justin” who featured as a case study in the commissions review [see Chapter 2 here].

The former principal had been accused of having sexual intercourse with a girl in her mid-teen earlier in his teaching career after spotting her walking home intoxicated. 

In a 2021 review, the Department Secretary reprimanded “Justin” for leaving himself vulnerable to criticism. It was revealed years after this incident he supported another teacher who challenged their employment termination for alleged sexual misconduct towards students.

Documented legal proceedings reported that Justin said [to the teacher] he had been through a similar situation before and reassured him that things would “wash over”. These proceedings (note(s) 130,) were suppressed from the initial report under a restricted publication order (RPO) to protect Justin’s identity, a move that has widely been criticised by experts and the crossbench alike.

Despite this we were able to obtain the court documents the report was implying, through publicly accessible indexes. Key phrases and public tips led us to a list of potential individuals of which we listed variables. We observed in every one of these instances 6 crucial pieces of information from “Justin” and another individual lined up which gives our outlet a high degree of confidence that we had identified the person.

This occurred within less than 3 hours however we broadened our scope to collect as much information and did further cross examination over an extended period. This itself raises concern that victims’ identities could easily be compromised through similar methods that we used but rather by malicious actors or abusers. We also conversed with both whistleblower sources and the public revealing that despite the commission’s suppression orders, in many cases the identities of both alleged victims and perpetrators were already known.

In 2021, the Department reinvestigated the allegations against “Justin” on top of a separate review involving the larger “Mark” case (of which “Justin” was principal at the time of it occuring). The report concluded that he was not acting in the ‘course of employment’ at the time of the incident, which meant his conduct was not linked to his obligations under the State Service Code of Conduct.

What was not revealed however, was that rather than mandatory leave or termination, “Justin” would go on to serve a relegated position in DECYP after being removed from his role. He would eventually be promoted to areas of work related to strategy that allegedly overlap areas under scrutiny by the Commission of Inquiry, a role he is currently working in.

In early January, prior to this investigation we received a tipoff from a DECYP whistleblower that also confirms this internally, however we did not pursue the case at that time due to a lack of information:

“I am a DECYP employee and must remain anonymous.

A principal [REDACTED] high school in [REDACTED] has has serious misconduct allegations levelled at him…He has been [REDACTED], however he has been moved to an office position within DECYP.

There is concern that this person is still allowed to work in the [REDACTED] and should be placed on administrative leave. It will be incredibly difficult and uncomfortable for employees if these allegations are found true, not to mention he’ll be involved with areas related to [COI].”

– “Garry” (Anonymous DECYP Employee)

Concerns mount over compromised department

Despite the government relegating staff to non-student-facing roles, the risk is not just focused on direct contact with children, but institutionally. this single case alone raises concerns of potential “ratlines” emerging within the department that could see alleged child sex offenders or those sympathetic to those accused operating components of the system.

While the government has “risk based redeployment” rules and administrative leave during investigations, allowing an individual with substantial allegations to be involved (regardless if allegations occurred within or outside of the window of employment or if they were found in violation or not) could compromise the integrity and trust of the department.

In regards to the “Mark” case the commission itself raised concerns that a departmental review in 2021 was ‘too quick’ to downplay the seriousness of the matter and lacked tightness.

Another key point is that there was too much deference to the view of the school principal (Justin). It was revealed that:

• The principal’s judgment effectively determined the outcome, with no meaningful challenge. 
• Oversight mechanisms were superficial 
• Known risk factors were ignored 

What this implies is that the decision-maker had prior allegations yet was still trusted without additional scrutiny. What it shows today is that the system does not reliably filter out risk at the decision-making level but most critically, It challenges the idea that reallocation solve the problem. 

Individuals like Justin potentially serving in these backroom roles could now see those same judgment failures, but with a greater institutional-wide effect.

Another Former Employee Signals Oversight Bodies Lacking Independent Counsel 

If we zoom out to the systematic issues, we can also observe centralised legal control and redeployment practices also play into concerns about Tasmania’s child safety reforms.

Muria Roberts, a former DECYP employee subject to alleged workplace mobbing and secret blacklisting by the department has raised concerns that COI promised reforms, specifically a key recommendation regarding FC-17 for legal independence had not been implemented and that the government substituted guidelines for binding change. 

What is FC-17?

Treasurer’s Instruction No. FC-17 – Engagement of Legal Practitioners is a government directive that mandates how agencies obtain legal services, ensuring they primarily use Crown Law officers rather than private firms (limits independent advice). It reinforces constitutional principles requiring the Crown to obtain legal advice from authorized officers.

In both the COI and the Woolcott Review, FC-17 and related guidelines had been identified as a risk preventing oversight and regulatory agencies from freely seeking external independent legal advice. It recommended amendments so that FC-17 does not apply to key oversight bodies for the purposes of legal advice.

Despite the Government’s claims it had implemented all recommendations, it did not actually reform FC-17, instead substituting for guidelines which are non-binding. [See Recommendations of Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry, public hearing transcript, 19 August 2024, pp. 62–64]

“So if they’re read in conjunction with each other you don’t need to update the Treasurer’s Instructions [FC-17]…?” — Meg Webb

“Yes, correct.” — Guy Barnett

Roberts has called out the government’s move, stating that they made it out to be seen as taking action, but instead “it all being a whitewash”. She also argues that due to the government introducing guidelines, they do not have the power to counter FC-17 meaning everything still operates unchanged. 

“FC-17 was recommended for reform by the Commission of Inquiry and the government committed to that and legislated to implement ALL the recommendations, but they have sidestepped the FC-17 reform. It was a total whitewash” – Muria Roberts, 2026

Government Finds Itself With Difficult Questions To Answer

With these revelations, pressure mounts on the government which is not free of scrutiny. From scuffed student exams, low attainments and the commission revelations itself, the troubled department is building a library of history it is struggling to come to terms with.

In a 2023 report on the government’s response to the inquiry, Education Minister Jo Palmer emphasised the importance “to build a culture of accountability, transparency and care”. Today we asked the Minister if today’s revelations undermine her department’s trust and the integrity of her own ministry, considering our reporting suggests the opposite has been achieved…we have not received a response.

We also put forward four key questions open to either the Minister or a department spokesperson to respond to:

• 1. Can you confirm whether any individuals subject to historical misconduct allegations have been redeployed in the department?
• 2. Who made the decision to move the individual(s) into a “back-office” departmental role, and what advice (legal, HR, child safety) was relied upon?
• 3. In hindsight, does the department accept that redeployment (rather than leave) may undermine public trust, regardless of the investigation’s outcome?
• 4. Does DECYP allow employees who have been the subject of serious allegations to contribute to ongoing and past reforms inside of the department?

At the time of publication, we have not received a response to those questions. The office department liaison did however acknowledge receipt and informed us that the Minister took our correspondence into consideration. We provided a reasonable timeframe for the office to respond.

No New Material From Crossbench, Opposition

Following the CoI, a committee statement back in 2023, Greens MHA Dr Rosalie Woodruff slammed the government for its decision to shift employees into hidden roles which back then was potentially much more limited in scope compared to the present situation.

“…That trust has been appallingly broken from decades of abuses that have occurred in Government institutions in Tasmania, and that have been enabled by people who have failed to take actions; who have covered up perpetrators; who have shifted them into other agencies; who have hidden and damaged evidence of abuse…” – Dr Rosalie Woodruff, 2023

The Greens have also critiqued what they perceive as a priority to protect the institution and perpetrators over the victims, where in the COI also found that too often the department downplayed the severity of claims.

Meanwhile the Labor opposition recently stated the government has broadly overseen an unacceptable amount of integrity and transparency failures, especially within recent memory.

“There are more integrity failures of this government in the last 12 months than I dare say you’d find anywhere else in the history of Tasmanian governments,” Ella Haddad, Shadow Attorney General, 2026

We also approached Labor for questioning but have not received anything back from them.

However a new figure has weighed into todays revelation. Independent candidate Phillip Bigg, a rising independent voice expressed his concern when approached for comment. Phillip would also provide information that would be important in expanding the existing controversies surround this topic.

“The systemic unwillingness to hold officials to account in Tasmania means that instead of holding public servants and politicians responsible for their misbehavior, we either reward them to buy their silence or move them sideways hoping the issue can be buried.

This is a prime example of why Tasmania needs and deserves a properly resourced and empowered integrity and anti-corruption body.” – Phillip Bigg, 2026

Are Departments & External Groups Compromised?

While this investigation may initially be taken at face value regarding contact with children, it is not about contact alone but rather influence, culture and decision-making throughout multiple institutions. What these allegations suggest is significant dissonance is growing within the department and is only one step beyond already existing information.

It taps in to a broader issue of government’s responsibility to effectively balance the issues and concerns within departments and the victims of alleged offenses. The Government has implemented many reforms and its Minister champions its progress but many questions still remain unanswered, and in some cases suppressed.