Even after being found out and arrested in 2009, Miki still managed to teach at two more schools before being caught again in January. The inquiry noted his accomplished lying and deceit, his assertive style and his willingness to resort to serious criminal activity, including identity theft, created serious problems. Nonetheless, what he was able to get away with was staggering.
The same fundamental reactions are repeated with James Parker, former deputy principal of a Far North primary school.
Parker's popularity and way with children and the community hid a string of sexual offending with boys that is hard to comprehend.
The community and school authorities looked the other way at his inappropriate behaviour, and few were sufficiently suspicious. Sickeningly, offending actually increased after a police investigation in 2009 failed to find enough evidence to prosecute. But how, after police wrote a strongly worded letter alerting the principal to the complaint, could so little be done?
Why, in this day and age, was Parker allowed to take children home to his place?
Extraordinarily, the police letter specifically mentioned the undesirable practice. Although a world of constant suspicion would be hateful and destructive, are we too trusting?
In the Miki case, Education Minister Hekia Parata is certainly not overstating things when she says it is a wake-up call. Numerous failings of both systems and individuals provided opportunities for Miki. These inadequacies were not just in the education system. Police, probation services and the ease with which names can be changed through Internal Affairs come in for criticism.
It is frightening that the all too human weaknesses of naivety, slackness and ignorance all stood in the way of the deceit being discovered sooner. So, too, did that common characteristic to wish for the best, to believe what suits. In particular, it was easier for Miki to be accepted because in difficult-to-staff rural and Maori schools there were few choices.
All these traits will be common to many organisations and among many people.
Mrs Parata says the safety of children must always being paramount, a theme that runs through the report. Citing the mantra, however, does not mean carrying it out in practice. While witch hunts, persecution and jumping to conclusions must be avoided, it must also be possible for suspicions to be raised for the sake of risks to pupils. One of Miki's principals was beginning to complain to the New Zealand Teachers Council, but when it was clear the council required harder evidence he gave up. Yet, if the council had begun inquiries, the web of fraud around Miki could well have disintegrated.
On one occasion, too, erroneously citing the Privacy Act, the council refused to give a principal information. Similarly, the inquiry notes that some boards of trustees seemed ignorant that they could seek consent from applicants to make wide-ranging background checks. Red flags, of course, would rapidly be raised if applicants declined consent.
Police in 2009 should have charged Miki with, as well as breaching parole conditions, teaching frauds. The principal at the school, meanwhile, had a mandatory duty to inform the Teachers Council, but claims not to have known of that obligation and expected the police to do so. It was also too easy for Miki to change his name officially and take on the identity of another teacher. All up, 35 recommendations have been made that must be looked at.
In both the Miki and Parker circumstances, improvements in systems will be required. More important still are attitudes.
Authorities and parents need not be paranoid nor excessively anxious. But they do need to balance goodwill with a healthy weight of wariness, especially because while the law substantially protects teachers the same cannot always be said for children.
