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