What was this correspondence with Chris Pyne that Zhu Minshen tried to keep out of the public eye? Why has it not been disclosed in NSW LPAB Annual Reports? Chief Justice Bathurst & AG Speakman owe the public an explanation

by Ganesh Sahathevan

                                             

From left to right :Prof Eugene Clark, Hon George Brandis,  Dr Minshen Zhu.Politicians constantly change their position

on matters and their allegiances, so Brandis being critical of Zhu while being happy to be photographed with him is notinconsistent, for a politician. 

It has been previously disclosed by this writer that the NSW Legal Profession Admission Board's dealings with Zhu Minshen and his Top Group raise a number of audit red flags:

Timing of Zhu Minshen & Top Group's LPAB decision adds to LPAB audit red flags: AG Mark Speakman must ensure that the details of the LPAB's dealings with Top, Zhu are fully disclosed. Auditor General NSW has a duty to ensure Speakman does so

It has since been discovered that Zhu Misnhen attempted to prevent the disclosure of information requested of the Department Of Education pursuant to an FOI application by an unnamed person.

The matter was disclosed in the decision summarised below: 

Top Education Group Ltd and Department of Education and Training (Freedom of information) [2017] AICmr 128 (5 December 2017)

3. The IC review applicant, Top Education Group Ltd,[1] trading as ‘Top Education Institute’ is a private provider of higher education services.

10. I (the Australian Information Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim) note that the four documents (subject of the FOI application under review) include a ministerial brief that had considered a letter (the Principal’s letter) sent from the Principal of the IC (Zhu Minshen) review applicant (the Principal) to the then Minister for Education, the Hon. Christopher Pyne MP (the Minister).
11. On 25 August 2017, the IC review applicant submitted that it no longer presses for exemption of the material in three documents.[9] However, it maintains its contention that the one remaining document contains material that is exempt under s 47G.[10]
12. The relevant document comprises six pages of ministerial correspondence,[11] this includes a letter dated 9 January 2014 from the Minister to the Principal (the Minister’s letter).[12] The material remaining at issue in this IC review is the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph in the Minister’s letter (the material). I note that the Principal’s letter and the ministerial brief are no longer at issue in this IC review.[13]

25. The IC review applicant submits:

It is clear that the [material] written in response and/or reference to the Second Dot Point [in the ministerial brief] as they similarly mischaracterise the content and substance of the [the Principal’s] letter. It follows for the same reasons that the [material] should also be exempt.

26. The IC review applicant essentially contends that the material misrepresents the content and substance of its position on an issue.

27. The IC review applicant (Zhu Mnshen's Top Group)  further submits:

The content of the [material] may result in the various higher education regulators and bodies perceiving Top negatively. This may damage the goodwill and rapport that Top has established with various higher education regulators and bodies through its compliance track record. There is a real risk that this may unduly affect Top’s ability to maintain the necessary registrations, accreditations, recognition and/or approvals to maintain its business and attract students in the future. Specifically, there is a risk that Top’s applications for renewals of registrations, approvals or accreditations may be delayed or reviewed with greater scrutiny; all of which, would adversely affect Top’s agility in the education market, resources and business generally...

29. The applicant’s exemption contentions are based on the premise that the Minister’s letter draws from ‘incomplete, inaccurate and misleading material’ within the ministerial brief. However, I accept the Department’s submissions that neither the Principal’s letter nor the Minister’s letter contain incorrect information.
30. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that disclosure of the material could convey incorrect information.

While Top Group's application was dismissed, and someone has had access to the information which Top felt could adversely affect Top’s applications for renewals of registrations, approvals or accreditations, the information has not been disclosed in the NSW LAPB's annual reports. Indeed, Top has been happy to report that a recent NSW LPAB review "went smoothly".

The Chief Justice Of NSW Tom Bathurst is chairman of the NSW LPAB.The Minister in charge is the AG NSW Mark Speakman.Both have remained, silent and evaded questions from this writer abiut their dealings with Zhu Minshen, implying that the queries were a form of threat and intimidation.

Both men owe the public an explanation with regards all of the above, and more.

END

NSW Bar Association is asking the State Government for rent relief on chambers for its 2400 members.Meanwhile Bar's leadership will not address matter of AUD 40-50 Million p.a. misallocated to their College Of Law Sydney

by Ganesh Sahathevan


From Mark Latham, Member of the Legislative Council, NSW Parliament 

You Retweeted

Real Mark Latham

@RealMarkLatham

The NSW Bar Association is asking the State Government for rent relief on chambers for its 2400 members. Wow. Simply wow. The entitled leeches in our society have really come to the surface in this crisis.

Meanwhile, the NSW Bar Association is not prepared to save taxpayers $40-50 Million a year in FEE HELP funding provided the NSW legal establishment's College Of Law Sydney.

END

To Be Read With

TAFE funding cut of $326 Million (and more) can be restored by re-directing $50 Million a year paid to the NSW legal establishment's College Of Law

January 03, 2020

by Ganesh Sahathevan

As reported earlier by this writer, some $40-50 Million a year in FEE HELP is probably being misallocated by the Federal Government to Sydney's College Of Law, as result of failure by the regulator, the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board, to address issues of poor course content that are more than a decade old.

It has also been shown that FEE HELP financed revenues which are meant to finance the Professional Legal Training Programme, which is compulsory for anyone wishing to be admitted to practise law in NSW, now appear to have been diverted to a number of foreign ventures.

Meanwhile the Federal Government has been happy to slash $326 Million from TAFE funding, despite the shortage of skilled workers.

In short, the Government is happy to fund entry into an already over-supplied market for lawyers, but unwilling to provide funds for training in areas where there are not enough workers.

Worse, it does so despite complaints about the course content, and relevance.In fact, the PLT was once only ever an alternative to articles, but has over the years evolved into a Graduate Diploma despite the course content being whittled down.

In attempt to justify the post graduate standing of what is essentially a vocational course the College's Academic Director, Lewis Patrick has informed this writer (who was once a student at the College,and completed his PLT): 

Please note that in assessing your work experience journal the College is not assessing the quality of your work experience, but rather the quality of your reflections on that experience. 

The PLT 's tutorial component lasts approximately three months. A work experience component  of 75 days must also be completed. The PLT  would normally be considered the equivalent of a TAFE vocational training 

course, or a Graduate Certificate at best.Instead TEQSA recognises it as a Graduate Diploma and it qualifies for FEE HELP funding (while PLT students incur the debt it is the taxpayer who funds the cash outflow, and carries the risk, but without compensation for the risk).

Dan Tehan needs to explain his misplaced spending priorities. 

END 

Federal TAFE funding slashed by $326m

By AAP

4:19pm Dec 4, 2019

•  

Federal government funding for TAFE and training was cut by $326 million last year, a new report says.

The report, released on Wednesday by the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, reveals federal funding of the sector dropped 11 per cent compared to 2017.

Labor education spokesperson Tanya Plibersek said the cut had contributed to a worsening national skills crisis.

"Is it any wonder our nation has a shortage of plumbers, hairdressers, bricklayers, panelbeaters and other critical workers?" she said.

"By locking Australians out of education the Liberals are locking Australians out of jobs."

While the federal government decreased funding to $2.8 billion in 2018, the states and territories increased their funding by $191 million to $3.4 billion.

Combined, TAFE and training funding totalled $6.1 billion in 2018 - a 2.1 per cent decrease in nominal terms compared to 2017.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Morrison's India visit to be scrapped
• Police charge man over Canberra grass fire
• Set budget urged for aerial fire fleet

Ms Plibersek said the $326 million federal cut could pay for an extra 32,000 trainees or apprentices.

She said there are now more people dropping out of training programs than finishing them, and more than two million people out of work or looking for more hours.

"Now we know why Scott Morrison isn't training these people for jobs in industries facing skills shortages: because he's starving TAFEs and training of funding," Ms Plibersek said.

© AAP 2020