To : Minister Re : Reviewing Brisbane Grammar School’s Compliance with Non State School Accreditation Thank you for correspondence received 10 April 2017 from Mr Don Wilson, Senior Policy Advisor on behalf of Office of the Hon Kate Jones MP Minister for Education and Minister for Tourism, Major Events and the Commonwealth Games. Victims in Royal Commission Case Study 34 respond as follows to the most recent communication 1. Attention should be immediately drawn to the prescribed objects as set out in Accreditation of Non State Schools Act 2001 Chapter 1 Part 2 Section 3 Section 3 Objects of Act (1) The objects of this Act are— (a) to uphold the standards of education at non-State schools; and (b) to maintain public confidence in the operation of non-State schools; and (c) to foster educational choices in the State; and (d) to provide the basis for the efficient allocation of Government funding for non-State schools. (2) The objects are to be achieved mainly by— (a) establishing the Non-State Schools Accreditation Board; and (b) establishing an accreditation regime for the accreditation of non-State schools complying with the accreditation criteria; and (c) establishing the Non-State Schools Eligibility for Government Funding Committee; and (d) establishing a formal process for deciding the eligibility of a non-State school's governing body for Government funding for the non-State school. 2. The specific issue concerning the question of “Refunding School Fees,” to parents who’s son’s attended Brisbane Grammar School and were sexually abuse by Kevin Lynch is the most urgent issue that needs clarification by the Accreditation Board and the Minister. 3. As previously advised the Board of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees have issued refusal notification to victims and their parents. A public declaration that the School refuses to “Refund School Fees,” almost certainly breaches the stated objects of the 2001 Act, as it is unlikely to maintain public confidence in the operations of a non state School, by the actions of the School. Hence it is alleged this would in fact be a breach of the Act. 4. In so far as the Non State School Accreditation Board is concerned there is now likely more scope for the Minister to be acting and responding to all of the urgent issues, rather than the Accreditation Board. The Accreditation Board should have already been monitoring Brisbane Grammar School. It is not clear if this has been the case. The issues at hand are complex and there is a real threat to Brisbane Grammar School’s existence as a “Going Concern.” Until clarity is brought to all the issues, it would be rather more sensible for the Minister to now take a lead and resolve the issues. 5. It is noted under the 2001 Act that there are implications for Brisbane Grammar School to maintain its accreditation, if in the likely event the Qld Auditor accepts on examination the School is now technically insolvent. 6. While it is typically a rare occurrence for a School to become technically insolvent, there is very little in the 2001 Act that would allow for a “Soft” appointment of administrators. Therefore a dilemma now needs to be faced by the Minister, in so much as doing nothing is now not an option. Victims as creditors require an ultimate decision on the “Refunding of School Fees.” The Qld Auditor will also need a degree of clarity on this specific issue in determining and reporting on the School’s ability to continue as a “Going Concern.” 7. The position is very clear from victims in Royal Commission Case Study 34 given the findings by the Commission, that it would be an expectation Brisbane Grammar School would now “Refund School Fees,” without any further hesitation or procrastination. Other Institutions such as St Paul’s School in Case Study 34 have refunded School fees, as one of the many options available in supporting victims of horrific sexual abuse. 8. From the School’s point of view it is understandable that refusing to “Refund School Fees,” may well protect the School from technical insolvency. However this decision has to be balanced with the stated objects under the non-state School Accreditation Act 2001 and the Accreditation Criteria, particularly in relation to financial viability. The Board of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees most certainly can’t pick and choose an outcome that may well protect the School from technical insolvency, but that may well breach the stated objects of the very Act that gives the School legal legitimacy. 9. Under the 2001 Act, it is submitted to the Minister that formally declaring all Schools have a duty of care to “Refund School Fees,” may well draw clarity under the issue. That is when a School has been found by an authoritative body such as the Royal Commission to have breached its duty of care, “Refunding School Fees,” is a given just as it is with any faulty consumer product. A “Refund of School Fees,” should be best practice in order to restore public confidence in non state schools and restore faith in institutional failure. 10. It is drawn to the Minister’s immediate attention that under the 2001 Act, there is provision pursuant to Section 107 for the Minister to refer an accreditation matter to the Accreditation Board. The specific issue of “School Fee Refunds,” surely fits such a criteria, as an accreditation matter for the Minister to act and not claim there is little the Minister can do. Section 107 Minister may refer accreditation matter to board (1) If the Minister considers there is a matter about the accreditation of schools the board should examine, the Minister may, by notice, refer the matter to the board for its examination. (2) The board must, after completing the examination, give the Minister a written report about the matter. (3) The report may include a recommendation about changing the accreditation scheme under this Act. 11. It is highlighted to the Minister pursuant to Section 108 of the 2001 Act that the Minister most certainly can give direction in the “Public interest.” “Refund of School Fees,” surely in the eyes of the Minister fits the “Public Interest” test. 108 Minister’s power to give directions in the public interest (1) The Minister may give the board a written direction about a matter relevant to the performance of its functions under this Act if the Minister is satisfied it is necessary to give the direction in the public interest. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the direction may be that the board must comply with— (a) a policy, standard or other instrument applying to a public sector unit; or (b) another document, including, for example, another policy, standard or instrument. (3) The board must comply with the direction. (4) The direction can not be about— (a) the provisional accreditation, or accreditation, of a particular school; or (b) the changing of a particular school’s provisional accreditation period; or (c) the changing of the attributes of provisional accreditation of a particular school; or (d) the changing of the attributes of accreditation of a particular school; or (e) the cancelling of a provisional accreditation, or accreditation, of a particular school. (5) In the board’s annual report for a financial year, under the Financial Accountability Act 2009, the board must include copies of all directions given to it under this section during the financial year. 12. It would be wrong in law and a breach of the Ministers duties for the Minister to simply dismiss the request by victims of Brisbane Grammar School for her to use powers under the Accreditation of Non State Schools Act 2001. There are certain provisions within the Act as clearly highlighted for the Minister to Act, if she so chooses to do so. Unfortunately inaction is not an option for the Minister any longer. It is imperative that the situation in relation to the request by victims for a “Refund of School Fees,” paid by parents to Brisbane Grammar School be resolved. Given the immediate issue for the Qld Auditor to review the financial situation of Brisbane Grammar School, all statutory bodies and that includes the Accreditation Board who have been rather silent now need to be responsive to all the issues. 13. The legal question that arises and certainly has not been considered by any means in the most recent communication from the Minister, dated 10 April 2017is the very fact that Brisbane Grammar School Board of Trustees refusal to “Refund School Fees,” compromises and almost certainly therefore breaches the very specific objects under the Accreditation of Non State Schools Act 2001. 14. It is not clear from the Ministers response, if in fact the Board of Brisbane Grammar School Trustees sought both advice and approval from the Accreditation Board prior to issuing a decision to refuse to “Refund School Fees.” It would be helpful if the Accreditation Board could clarify this very point. 15. It is not clear to victims acting as creditors seeking to recover financial losses against the School, if the Governing Board of Brisbane Grammar School have reported any material changes of the School’s circumstances to the Accreditation Board pursuant to Chapter 6 Section 167 (2) (e). Highlighting to the Accreditation Board the “Finings report,” by the Royal Commission in Case Study 34 and likely financial implication pursuant to the Act is an issue that surely the Board of Trustees would have reported to the Accreditation Board. 167 Notification of change in circumstances (2) The governing body must within 14 days after the happening of each of the following events give the board notice of the event— (a) the closure of the school; (b) the school stops offering a year of schooling for which it is provisionally accredited or accredited; (c) the governing body is affected by control action under the Corporations Act; (d) for a Government-funded school—the school starts to be operated for profit; (e) any other change in the governing body’s, or school’s, circumstances prescribed under a regulation. 16. The response on behalf of the Minister dated 10 April 2017 gives scant detail as to why Mr Don Wilson concludes that Chapter 4 “Reviewing Decisions” of the 2001 Act does not apply in this particular situation. 17. It is summarily argued in more detail that Chapter 4 of the 2001 Act “Reviewing Decisions,” and other sections of the Act as highlighted most certainly would apply when a certain decision has a material influence on a non-state School’s accreditation, breach of objects of accreditation and or material circumstances change the Schools Accreditation. It would be logical for the Act to allow certain provision and for certain decisions to be reviewed when the very nature of complying with accreditation is at issue. The 2001 Act certainly does not specify exactly what decisions can not be reviewed. Therefore there is very good reason for the Minister to step in on this occasion, as it would ultimately resolve the impasse, draw clarity over the issue of “School Fee Refund,” restore public confidence in the operation of a Non State School and give a definitive answer for the Qld Auditor to draw a final conclusion on Brisbane Grammar School’s ability to continue as a “Going Concern.” 18. Victims as creditors of Brisbane Grammar School are in full agreement and support the only practical process of now resolving all the issues is for Kaylene Cossart - Manager Specialist Audit Services Queensland Audit Office to conduct a full audit investigation. In due course while the audit findings may not be disclosed directly to victims as creditors, nevertheless the audit is more than likely to cover the issues needed in clarifying these issues on behalf of victims. Statement made this Day the 11th day of April 2017 Lynch Victim Signature Lynch Victim Respond via email to : lynchvictim@gmail.com