Public Accounts and Administration—Standing Committee

Reference

MR PARTON (Brindabella—Leader of the Opposition) (3.22): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) notes:

(a)on4June2025,ChairoftheBoardoftheCanberraInstituteofTechnology (CIT) announced the appointment of Dr Margot McNeill as the new CEO of CIT;

(b) on 18 June 2025, Dr Margot McNeill commenced in her role as CEO of CIT;

(c) media reported on 17 March 2026 that:

(i) Dr McNeill had been under investigation for allegations of” serious misconduct” arising out of complaints made against her in her previous employment at TAFE NSW in May 2024;

(ii) DrMcNeill had beenplaced on“special leave”from November 2024 and did not perform any duties at all;

(iii) between May 2025 and December 2025, Dr McNeill participated in the investigation by TAFE NSW;

(iv) Dr McNeill was informed on 16 September 2025 that TAFE NSW had made a finding that her conduct was in breach of the TAFE NSW Code of Conduct;

(v) on 11 December 2025; Dr McNeill was notified that TAFE NSW determined her employment was terminated “due to substantiated findings of misconduct”; (vi)on 14 January 2026, Dr McNeill filed an application in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission for unfair dismissal;

(vii)on13March2026,theNSWIndustrialRelationsCommissionmade a finding in favour of TAFE NSW including awarding costs against Dr McNeill for TAFE NSW;

(d) in Question Time on 18 March 2026, the Minister for Skills, Training and Industrial Relations, Michael Pettersson, confirmed that:

(i) he was made aware that Dr McNeill was under investigation for serious misconduct on 17 June 2025;

(ii) he had referred the matter to “relevant authorities” and had commenced an independent review’; into the due diligence of the recruitment process;

(iii) he was notified by the Board of CIT on 19 December 2025 that TAFE NSW had made a finding that Dr McNeill had breached TAFE NSW’s Code of Conduct;

(e) on radio on 19 March 2026, Chair of the CIT Board, Kate Lundy, confirmedthat DrMcNeill hadnot disclosedshewasunderinvestigation

for serious misconduct at the time she applied for the role of CEO of CIT;

(2) further notes:

(a) CIT is the ACT’s premier public vocational training institute and provides an essential service in delivering training in essential and key skills for the workforce of the future;

(b) public confidence in CIT is crucial;

(c)in announcing the appointment of Dr McNeill as the new CEO of CIT, the Chair of the Board of CIT, Kate Lundy, stated that “CIT “was so ready to turn a corner” after the former chief executive was found to have engaged in serious corrupt conduct;

(3) calls on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Administration to inquire into the following matters:

(a) the effectiveness of the due diligence processes of the Board of CIT in the recruitment of Dr McNeil;

(b) whether Dr McNeill has breached the Financial Management Act 1996 in failing to disclose she was under investigation for “serious misconduct” at the time she applied for the role;

(c) whether the Board has breached its duties under the Financial Management Act 1996 in relation to the recruitment of Dr McNeill;

(d) whether the Minister for Skills, Training and Industrial Relations has discharged his obligation in his duty of oversight of the Board; and

(e) any other related matters.

We have already discussed the reasons that we believe this is important to get to, and to get to now. We know that Dr Margot McNeill became the CEO of CIT on 18 June last year. We know, as the minister did then, that Dr McNeill had been under investigation for allegations of serious misconduct arising from complaints made against her in her previous employment. We know that Dr McNeill was placed on special leave from November 2024 and was not performing duties as such. We know that Dr McNeill was informed on 16 September last year that she was found in breach of the TAFE NSW Code of Conduct.

We also know that, in December last year, Dr McNeill was notified that TAFE NSW had determined that her employment was terminated due to substantial findings of misconduct. We know that Dr McNeill filed an application in the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission for unfair dismissal. That was on 14 January this year. We know that, last week, the IRC made a finding in that matter in favour of TAFE NSW, including awarding costs against Dr McNeill. We know that the minister became aware of these allegations prior to the start date for Dr McNeill.

On radio this morning, Mr Pettersson attempted to distance himself from this saga by saying that all the decisions were made by the independent board, and he stated that the board do not answer to him; but, ultimately, they kind of do.

We are moving this motion today because we believe that members of this Assembly should be given the opportunity to ask questions of the board and the minister in the

context of a hearing, and we have referred it specifically to PAC because we want to know whether Dr McNeill has breached the Financial Management Act in failing to disclose that she was under investigation for serious misconduct at the time that she applied for the role. Additionally, we think that, as the end of the tenure of the current chair of the board is approaching very quickly, it is extremely timely that we pull the trigger on this and move as quickly as we possibly can.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

MR PETTERSSON (Yerrabi—Minister for Business, Arts and Creative Industries, Minister for Children, Youth and Families, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Skills, Training and Industrial Relations) (3.24): As I indicated in the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders, the government does not have a fundamental opposition to this line of inquiry. I personally hold the value of parliamentary inquiries in thehighest esteem and,as Ihaveindicatedpreviously,Ivalue the interest of members in this place in the affairs of CIT.

CIT have an important role to play in the life of this city; it is important that they play that role well. I appreciate that members may hold a view that CIT is not performing those functions well or appropriately and may seek to inquire into it. That is not a concern to me, and it is something that I welcome. As I have when I have answered questions in question time, I have done what I can to be helpful, with the information that I have available to me. I will continue to do that, because that is my job and that is my responsibility.

I appreciate that members will ask questions. Sometimes they will ask questions with more pure intent than others, but, in this situation, I need, once again, to place on the record my deep frustration that it appears that Mr Parton did not see any value in talking to me, the responsible minister, about this motion before surprising us with it in the chamber.

As I think is shown by my answers in question time and my willingness to try and aid the opposition in their lines of inquiry, I am very open to working alongside members in this place to ensure that CIT functions well. I will not resile from that. I want to work collaboratively in that pursuit. But it is challenging to continue to hold that belief in a pure intent when it is very clear that there was a coordinated effort on this one.

Mr Parton made reference to me having read from notes in question time. I did make reference, as others were speaking to the motion on the suspension of standing orders, that they all had prepared speeches. It is not like they did not have time to communicate with me that they would be seeking to move this motion. They could have, and they made a very deliberate choice not to do so.

I would be very curious to understand why they made that choice. I have not seen anything in the lines of questioning that speaks to a reason for them holding that view. I can only think of one, which is sheer politics and opportunism. I guess that is two reasons; apologies. I can only think of those reasons as to why I, as the responsible minister, and the government were not consulted on those matters.

In the debate on the motion to suspend standing orders, I raised what I think were very

appropriate concerns about proceeding down this path—not to dissuade from doing an inquiry, but to ensure that an inquiry is done appropriately and does not impede what I believe the intent of this inquiry is.

As members would be aware from my answers in question time, there is currently an independent review taking place into this process. These things can occur concurrently, but it does present challenges, in the midst of ongoing legal challenges, as to how this parliament navigates an inquiry of this nature without somehow impeding the result that I believe members are seeking.

That is for this parliament to navigate, but it will be very clear to the wider community that, if there are any issues raised or caused by the hasty way this parliament has proceeded with this inquiry, it will fall upon this moment right now, when we have decided to launch an inquiry without giving people the ability to engage constructively on these matters, which I have always endeavoured to do, and will continue to do.

I look forward to my engagement with this inquiry. I will continue to offer as much assistance as I can to members. I hope that this inquiry does not have the unintended consequences that are a real possibility when it comes to rushing an inquiry of this nature.

MR EMERSON (Kurrajong) (3.29): I want to speak very briefly in support of this inquiry. If it is of any comfort to the minister, I was not given any notice either. I was ambushed as much as you were. I would request that in future additional notice is provided to members to be able to consider, not just in this case, whether or not an inquiry should occur—I am supporting this motion because I believe it should—but also to look through the terms of reference and the other notes and ensure the validity of the motion. With all of that said, I hope to see the opposition support any similar initiatives in the future from other members of the Assembly where they feel a matter is urgent enough to justify a suspension of standing orders and to be considered in an afternoon, as this is being considered today.

This is a critical matter to investigate. I do appreciate and thank the minister for having mentioned the independent investigation that is occurring, but I believe community members also will expect broader oversight from this Assembly from multiple different representatives within the Assembly to ensure that this kind of thing stops happening at CIT. This is deeply concerning. Reports that the board was not informed that these investigations into allegations of serious misconduct were occurring from the appointee’s current employer at the time of the recruitment process, I think, warrant serious consideration and investigation and also swift action—slow action having been one of the serious concerns of what we had seen in response to the allegations levelled at and substantiated against the former CEO of CIT.

Again, yes there are concerns with the process—and I hope that we do not have an ambush inquiries stood up during question time or right after question time as a habit moving forward—but I do very much support this investigation and look forward participating in it and seeing what we uncover.

MR BRADDOCK (Yerrabi) (3.31): I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for this motion today. I also share concerns about the appointment which need to be

examined further, which is why the Greens will be supportive of this inquiry. While I do note that the minister has provided full and frank answers and assurances to provide further information—for which I am appreciative of, in particular the independent review, which I hope can be provided in as timely a fashion as possible—I am particularly concerned that, given the CIT board recent experience and repeated assurances they havemadeto this Assemblyviatheirrespectiveministers andin-person at hearings, they have not improved their governance processes to the extent to which they have assured us they have. This experience has demonstrated that the governance processes still have issues. Therefore, the minister and the board should be held to account to ensure that the CIT is effectively governed and managed.

In the comments the minister just made, he said that, if anyone wants to do a standing order 213, they are free to do so and agrees to not reach a position until after the circulation of this particular motion. I have circulated some amendments and I will just talk to those now. My first amendment “calls” and replaces it with “requests”—the reason being out of respect for the workload of members of the committee. I do not want to see a situation where the Assembly is effectively directing the workloads of the committees, sometimes to the detriment of what they are trying to achieve. The second amendment is just to provide a report back, to ensure that we get the information back to this Assembly as to what the committee found.

I seek leave to move both amendments as circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR BRADDOCK: I move:

1. In paragraph (3), omit “calls”, substitute: “requests”.

2. Add:

“(4) requests the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Administration to report back to the Assembly by 4 May 2026”.

MRPARTON(Brindabella—Leaderofthe Opposition)(3.34),inreply: Ihavealready supported the amendments. I would say to Mr Pettersson that I listened to the minister on the radio this morning and, using the voice recognition as I was driving, said, “Call Mickey P,” and then I said, “No, no, no.” I take on board the words that you have expressed today and perhaps I should have let it go through and we should have had a chat this morning—but that is on me. Nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is what the majority of the residents that have installed us here in this Assembly would want us to do. We certainly will be supporting the amendments from Mr Braddock— and let’s move on.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.