Re : 1. Request Education Minister to Review the Application of Chapter 4 of the Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001 Re : 2. Minister for Education Accept this Application for a Review of Brisbane Grammar School Board of Trustees Refusal to Refund School Fees to Parents of Victims of Sexual Abuse Thank you for correspondence received 9 March 2017 from the Premiers Department Victims in Royal Commission Case Study 34 respond as follows to the most recent communication 1. Victims respectfully disagree with the Premier and Education Minister’s assertion that there is nothing the Minister can in fact do about a number of relevant issues pertaining to the decisions of the Board of Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School. 2. It is noted that the Minister’s senior policy adviser claims that relevant legislation precludes the Minister from acting. This response from the Premier and Education Minister is wholly inadequate and fails to consider and address the relevant accreditation Act governing Brisbane Grammar School, as highlighted below. 3. There are a significant number of issues in relation to Royal Commission Case Study 34 and Brisbane Grammar School that need to be adequately addressed by relevant Ministers. These issues are still outstanding. It is trusted that these issues will be adequately addressed in due course and for reference shall be included in further follow-up communication. The current issue as set our below needs to be addressed by the Minister of Education, the Honourable Kate Jones, as a matter of urgency and priority. 4. The comments in relation to waiting for the National Redress Scheme to be formalized are noted from the Communication from the Minister and Brisbane Grammar School. However the most pressing issue that Brisbane Grammar School victims in Case Study 34 argue that is in fact outside the scope of a National Redress Scheme and therefore subject to further consideration by the Minister pursuant to the Act is a refund of School Fees paid by parents of victims of sexual abuse. 5. It is this specific issue in relation to Brisbane Grammar School’s refusal to refund School fees rather than victim redress per se under a National Redress Scheme, that victims on behalf of their parents want the Minister to intervene and review. It is argued the refund of School fees to parents of victims is a separate issue to redress to victims of sexual abuse. 6. This application seeks a review of the decision of the Board of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees in refusing to refund School Fees, pursuant to Chapter 4 Sections 101-104 of the Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001. 7. For ease of reference the relevant section of the Act follows at paragraphs 16 and 17 of this application. 8. The Minister should acknowledge and accept this notice of application dated 9th March 2017 on behalf of all parents and victims in Case Study 34 in seeking a review of Brisbane Grammar School’s Board of Trustees refusal to refund School Fees pursuant to Chapter 4 Section 102, 1b of the Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001. It is argued that a notification by the Board of Brisbane Grammar Trustees to refuse to refund School Fees paid by Parents of victims of sexual abuse in Royal Commission Case Study 34 is an “Information Notice,” under the meaning of the Act. Therefore Chapter 4 of the Act would apply in this instance and the Minister would be obliged to review the decision when requested to do so. 9. Pursuant to Chapter 4 Section 102, 2 of Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001, this is a notice of service on the Board of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees of the requested application of review of their decision by the Minister. 10. The provisions of Chapter 4 Sections 101-104 of the Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001 most certainly provide authority for the Minister to review decisions by the Board of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees. Under the provisions within the Act, the Minister has in fact the authority to give a direction to the Board of Trustees, if that is the final recommendation in resolving the decision at hand. 11. The Minister should also as part of such a review include the recent disciplining of victims by the Brisbane Grammar Board of Trustees. Victims posted the Change.org Petition seeking a refund of School Fees on Brisbane Grammar School’s social media platforms and were expelled by Trustees from such actions. Under the circumstances when Brisbane Grammar School continue to act without due consideration to the needs of victims of the most horrific acts of criminality, this is yet another example of wholly inadequate Institutional response to sexual abuse. That is when the School continue to consider the public reputational image of Brisbane Grammar School well above that of victims. 12. The issuing of bans and expelling former students of Brisbane Grammar School who were sexually assaulted, when the School is not prepared listen to the needs of victims is certainly not the type of behaviour and action victims would have expected form the Trustees. This is particularly so when the Brisbane Grammar School Chairman, Mr Howard Stack has claimed that the School knew nothing about sexual abuse by the former counsellor Kevin Lynch. This now contradicts the Royal Commission’s Report in Case Study 34, as the report now accepts that the former headmaster Dr Max Howell did in fact know but chose to ignore the acts of sexual abuse by the perpetrator Kevin Lynch. 13. It is the view of victims that some form of financial recompense should be forthcoming directly to those victims involved in respect of being expelled and banned by Brisbane Grammar School. The only reason for victims to post the petition on Brisbane Grammar social media platforms is to highlight to other parents and members of the School Body what victims really think of the School and the poor attitude the School has towards victims of sexual abuse. The attitude the School portrays to the wider School community is likely to convey the message to most, that the School is doing everything it can to support victims of sexual abuse, when the experiences of victims is exactly the opposite to the public communication issued by the School. In a democratic and free society victims should be allowed to post on the School’s social media without fear of retribution when it is justified to do so. 14. It is claimed what should not be tolerated by society and the Brisbane Grammar School community is inaccurate statements by the Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School. This is what the Minister should in fact be reviewing and why Brisbane Grammar School sought to punishing victims of sexual abuse who spoke out against the School. Victims believe they where more than within the right in taking the opportunity to highlight to other parents the lack of Duty of Care the current body of Brisbane Grammar Trustees has towards victims and their parents of sexual abuse. 15. It is submitted to the Minister that the expelling and banning of certain victims is a separate issue to National Redress and the refund of School Fees. Therefore it ought to be treated as a separate incident for those victims concerned. The appropriateness of actions of Brisbane Grammar School Board of Trustees needs to be called into question on this specific issue. Victims would welcome the Minister to thoroughly review this particular issue and make recommendations as she may deem appropriate under the circumstances. 16. For easy of reference Chapter 4 Sections 101-104 of the Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001 Chapter 4 Reviews of decisions 101 Who may apply for review A person who is given, or is entitled to be given, an information notice for a decision (the original decision) and who is dissatisfied with the decision may apply to the Minister for a review of the decision. 102 Applying for review (1) The application must be made within 28 days after— (a) if the person is given an information notice about the decision—the day the person is given the information notice; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the day the person otherwise becomes aware of the decision. (2) The Minister may, at any time, extend the time for applying for the review. (3) The application for review must be in writing and state fully the grounds of the application. 103 Review decision about board’s decision (1) This section applies if the original decision was made by the board. (2) The applicant must serve a copy of the application on the board. (3) The Minister must conduct the review on— (a) the material before the board that led to the original decision; and (b) the reasons for the original decision; and (c) any other relevant material the Minister allows (the allowed material). (4) For the review, the Minister must give the applicant and board a reasonable opportunity to make written representations to the Minister. (5) Without limiting subsection (4), if the allowed material affects the Minister’s decision, the Minister must give the applicant and board a reasonable opportunity to make written representations to the Minister on the material. (6) After reviewing the original decision, the Minister must make a further decision (the review decision) to— (a) refer the matter to which the decision relates back to the board for further consideration, subject to any directions decided by the Minister; or (b) decline to refer the matter to which the decision relates back to the board for further consideration. (7) The board must comply with the Minister’s directions under subsection (6)(a). (8) The Minister must, as soon as practicable, give the applicant notice of the review decision and any directions under subsection (6)(a). (9) In the board’s annual report for a financial year, under the Financial Accountability Act 2009, the board must also include details of all directions received by it, under subsection (6)(a), during the financial year. 104 Review decision about Minister’s decision (1) This section applies if the original decision was made by the Minister. (2) The Minister must conduct the review on— (a) the material that led to the original decision; and (b) the reasons for the original decision; and (c) any other relevant material the Minister allows (the allowed material). (3) For the review, the Minister must give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to make written representations to the Minister. (4) Without limiting subsection (3), if the allowed material affects the Minister’s decision, the Minister must give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to make written representations to the Minister on the material. (5) After reviewing the original decision, the Minister must make a further decision (the review decision) to— (a) confirm the original decision; or (b) amend the original decision; or (c) substitute another decision for the original decision. (6) The Minister must, as soon as practicable, give the applicant notice (the review notice) of the review decision. (7) If the review decision is not the decision sought by the applicant, the review notice must also state the reasons for the review decision 17. The Act further prescribes that an “Information Notice” is defined as information notice, for a decision made by the board or Minister, is a notice stating each of the following— (a) the decision; (b) the reasons for the decision; (c) that the person to whom the notice is given may have the decision reviewed within 28 days; (d) the way the person may have the decision reviewed; (e) if the decision is that a provisionally accredited school not be accredited—a direction that the person surrender the school’s certificate of provisional accreditation within 14 days after the decision takes effect; (f) if the decision is that a school’s provisional accreditation or accreditation be cancelled—a direction that the person surrender the certificate of provisional accreditation or accreditation within 14 days after the decision takes effect; (g) if the decision is that a school’s provisional accreditation period be extended or reduced under section 46(1)(b)—a direction that the person surrender the certificate of provisional accreditation within 14 days after the decision takes effect. 18. In summary it is respectfully request that the Minister review the Act if she has not done so in order to accept this submission and review the decision of Brisbane Grammar School’s Board of Trustees in refusing to refund to the parents of victims School fees paid by them. Statement made this Day the 9th day of March 2017 Lynch Victim Signature Lynch Victim Respond via email to : lynchvictim@gmail.com