An independent Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) is urging the resignation of the head of the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT), asserting that evidence suggests she “clearly misled” the governing board prior to her appointment.
During a recent committee hearing of the Legislative Assembly concerning her hiring, Margot McNeill revealed three statutory declarations submitted to the Australian Skills Quality Authority since she became CIT’s chief executive in June 2025. These declarations have come to light following a question posed during the session.
In one declaration dated December 2025, Dr. McNeill responded negatively to the inquiry: “Is there any other information that may impact upon whether the public is unlikely to have confidence in your suitability to be involved in an organisation that provides, assesses, or issues nationally recognised qualifications?” Similarly, in another declaration, she answered “No” when asked if she or any related individual was engaged in legal proceedings as a party or in another capacity.
However, a decision from the NSW Industrial Relations Commission in March revealed that Dr. McNeill was under investigation for allegations of “serious misconduct” at the time of her appointment to CIT. She was found to have violated the TAFE code of conduct in New South Wales, a finding she is contesting in the NSW Supreme Court.
Dr. McNeill has consistently maintained that she received legal counsel advising her against disclosing any information regarding the TAFE New South Wales investigation. Nevertheless, independent MLA Thomas Emerson argues that the statutory declarations demonstrate that Dr. McNeill misled the CIT board and has called for her to resign. He commented on ABC Radio Canberra, stating, “If she’s prioritising the public interest, she should be stepping down herself.” He further expressed confusion over the board’s failure to acknowledge a potential oversight in the hiring process.
Emerson also referred to a declaration made in March, in which Dr. McNeill responded affirmatively to the question about public confidence, citing media scrutiny related to her position in the Industrial Relations Commission case. He noted that this declaration did not explicitly mention her dismissal from TAFE New South Wales or the misconduct findings, characterizing it as a “partial disclosure” made only after the information became public.
In a recently released transcript from the in-camera committee hearing, Dr. McNeill asserted that she had acted “honestly and with integrity” throughout the recruitment process at CIT. She explained that she adhered to strict confidentiality guidelines that prohibited her from revealing any details about ongoing internal processes, including the recruitment.
Dr. McNeill stated, “Within those constraints, I participated fully in the recruitment process,” emphasizing that she provided necessary information and that the board conducted its own due diligence, including reference checks with senior executives. She clarified that she was only allowed to disclose the existence of the investigation after her appointment and did so in a confidential manner.
Regarding her references, Dr. McNeill indicated that they included TAFE NSW Managing Director Chloe Read and Chief People Officer Julie Tickle, but none mentioned the misconduct investigation. The references did note her reassignment from the role of Chief Product and Quality Officer to “special projects,” which she described as a typical procedure with an expectation of returning to her original position post-completion.
The CIT board stated that they were unaware of the ongoing misconduct investigation until after Dr. McNeill had been appointed. CIT chair Kate Lundy informed the inquiry that Dr. McNeill disclosed the allegations to the board as soon as she was authorized by TAFE NSW. Lundy remarked that Dr. McNeill had been under instructions not to disclose information about the investigation, which was to conclude upon her resignation.
Lundy added that the board received assurances throughout the recruitment process that there were no issues, both from Dr. McNeill and through inquiries made regarding any potential concerns. In a formal statement, the CIT board announced that they would refrain from commenting on matters currently before the Legislative Assembly inquiry, deeming it inappropriate to make public statements that could interfere with the investigation process. Dr. McNeill has been approached for further comments.
