Release of Audit Angers Pearson
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Minister for Education and QuHnsland Minister for Tourism and Major Events Governmenl level 37 lWS l WUll1m Street Bri,bane 4000 PO Box 15033 Clly (ISi Quun~llnd 4002 Aui tr1tl1 Tele phone •61737197530 Emall: educatlon'-'>mln l.s t~ul1 l . qld.1ov.au Hon Peter Wellington MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Alice Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 Tabled Incorporated, 1«-m .. intlcr incorpo1a itd. ' ' ~t \/ by IC;J\'C Dear Mrf eaker, 'k:t\'C ....! Clc•rk al the Tahk: ' I refer to an article in The Australian today, Release of audit angers P arson, a copy of which is attached for your reference. The article alleges I misled the Parliament on 30 November 2016, when answering a question without notice asked by the Member for Cook, Mr Billy Gordon MP. The Member for Cook queried if either the Director-General of Education or myself had provided the internal audit reports relating to Cape York Academy and/or the Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or any other media outlet. In my response, I stated "My understanding is that the audits were undertaken by the department of education and that they were released to the ABC under the right to information legislation." Mr Speaker, I submit I have not committed the offence of contempt of Parliament. There are three elements to be proven in order to establish that a Member has committed the contempt of deliberately misleading the House: 1. The statement must have been misleading; 2. The Member making the statement must have known, at the time the statement was made, that it was incorrect; and 3. In making the statement, the Member intended to mislead the House. I will deal with each of the elements in turn. 1. The statement must have been misleading The article in the Australian states: The informal release of documents contradicts a statement by Ms Jones to the Queensland parliament that the audits undertaken by the department were "released to the ABC under the right to information legislation". I submit, Mr Speaker, the article does not capture the context and entirety of the exchange between myself and the Member for Cook. 1je nclosel herewith page 4696 of Hansard dated 30 November 2016. I have reproduced the relevant excerpts from the transcript below, for your convenience. Mr GORDON : My question is to the Minister for Education and Minister for Tourism and Major Events. In reference to the confidential internal audit reports relating to the Cape York Academy and/or the Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy, is it the education department or Good to Great Schools Australia which has the responsibility for these confidential internal audit reports? Can the minister confirm if either the minister and/or the Director-General of Education has provided any related documents including the internal audit reports, associated documents and correspondence to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or any other media outlet? Ms JONES: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am happy to sit down with him and discuss the multiple questions that were in the question from the member for Cook, but I can say this: all decisions that I make as the Minister for Education are about ensuring that we deliver the best possible education for every single child no matter where they live in this state, and that includes the children of Aurukun. That is why in the last few months we have run a very detailed selection process to put a permanent principal - one of the highest qualified principals - in Queensland- into that school. I want to acknowledge and thank the principal who will be starting there next year for his enthusiasm about this job, because we know there are great things happening in the Aurukun school. I can assure the member for Cook that all of my dealings in relation to Aurukun and Good to Great Schools have been in good faith and focused on putting children and children's learning first. I will not be distracted by name-calling or by people making comments and releasing private documents publicly. My focus, as I am sure every single member of the House would want of me, is on the good quality outcomes of learning in that school. That is exactly what I will do day in and day out. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order on relevance. The question from the member for Cook was fairly simple. It asked who was responsible for the audits and whether the department has provided the audits to the AB C. The minister has not gone near 2 either of those elements of the question and I think that in the interests of providing a reasonable answer to the member for Cook she should answer the question. Mr SPEAKER: The minister indicated that she was going to take the matter up with the member for Cook. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members, let me finish. Resume your seat, member for Collide; I have not finished. It appeared to me that there were a number of questions in the answer. There was not just one question; there was a series of questions. Does the minister have anything further to add? MS JONES: Yes, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the audits were undertaken by the department of education and that they were released to the ABC under the right to information legislation. It is on the basis of the above evidence the article asserts I misled Parliament. Mr Speaker, as you would be aware when the Right to Information Bill was introduced in 2009, the former Premier Anna Bligh said in her second reading speech : The introduction of this bill ... represents a significant step forward for democracy in Queensland, and demonstrates the Queensland government's commitment to openness and transparency. The Right to Information Bill establishes a right to information for Queens/anders. The objects and operational clauses of the bill emphasise that information is to be released administratively unless there is a good reason not to, with applications under the legislation to only be an avenue of last resort. Further to this, Mr Speaker, the Right to Information Act 2009 contains a preamble setting out Parliament's reasons for enacting this legislation. Preamble Parliament's reasons for enacting this Act are - 1 Parliament recognises that in a free and democratic society- a. There should be open discussion of public affairs; and b. Information in the government's possession or under the government's control is a public resource; and 3 c. The community should be kept informed of government's operations, including, in particular, the rules and practice followed by government in its dealings with members of the community; and d. Openness in government enhances the accountability of government; and e. Openness in government increases the participation of members of the community in democratic processes leading to better informed decision making; and f. Right to information legislation contributes to a healthier representative, democratic government and enhances its practice; and g. Right to information legislation improves public administrations and the quality of government decision-making; and h. Right to information legislation is only 1 of a number of measures that should be adopted by government to increase the flow of information in the government's possession or under the government's control to the community. 2 The Government is proposing a new approach to access to information. Government information will be released administratively as a matter of course, unless there is good reason not to, with applications under this Act being necessary only as a last resort. 3 It is Parliament's intention to emphasise and promote the right to government information. It is also Parliament's intention to provide a right of access to information in the government's possession or under the government's control, unless, on balance, it is contrary to the public interest to provide the information. This Act reflects Parliament's opinion about making information available and the public interest. The legislation considers administrative access as a means to accessing information. It is my belief that the pro-disclosure bias of this legislation is fundamental to upholding the principles of a free and democratic society. In addition to this, section 132 of the Act provides the Information Commissione r with the power to issue guidelines about a matter for, or in connection with, any of the commissioner's functions. Subsection (3)(j) notes best practice for administrative access schemes are included. The Office of the Information Commissioner's guidelines on Administrative release of information st ate: A formal application for government-held information under the RT/ or IP Act should only be made as a fast resort. Therefore agencies need to assess whether additional 4 or enhanced administrative access schemes can help to reduce the need for formal applications under the RT/ or IP Act. Administrative release is a discretionary process but the framework for release is based on the same philosophy underpinning the RT/ and IP Acts. I note section 44(4) of the RTI Act provides: Pro-disclosure bias in deciding access to documents (4) However, it is the Parliament's intention that this Act should be administered with a pro-disclosure bias and an agency or Minister may give access to a document even if this Act provides that access to the document may be refused. I am advised on 28 September 2016, the Department of Education and Training received a right to information application from the ABC regarding the Cape York Institute, Cape York Partnership and Good to Great Schools Au stralia.