AB Nurses Support Services Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner - [2025] ARTA 2228

AB Nurses Support Services Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner [2025] ARTA 2228 (17 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  AB Nurses Support Services Pty Ltd
Respondent:  Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner
Tribunal Number:                2024/9932

Tribunal:General Member J Ross
Place:Canberra
Date:17 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 17 October 2025 at 2:16pm
Catchwords
AGED CARE – application to become a provider of aged care – home care – approval under section 63D of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 (Cth) – whether applicant is suitable to provide aged care – reviewable decision affirmed
Legislation
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018
(Cth), ss 5, 8B, 63B, s 63D, 74K

Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth), ss 45-3, s 54-1, s 56-2, 63-1
Corporations Act 2001
(Cth)

Cases
Amana Community Services and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner [2024] AATA 2984
AussieCare Foundation Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner [2023] AATA 2202
Better Disability Care Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner [2024] AATA 3593
Secondary Materials

Accountability Principles 2014
Quality of Care Principles 2014
Records Principles 2014
Subsidy Principles 2014

User Rights Principles 2014
Statement of Reasons

The Applicant, AB Nurses Support Services Pty Ltd (Applicant or AB Nurses) has applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision made by the Respondent (Respondent or Commissioner) not to approve the Applicant to become a provider of aged care – home care (aged care provider of home care).
At issue is whether the Applicant is suitable to be approved as an aged care provider of home care having regard to the matters in s 63D(3) of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 (Cth) (the Act), and if so, satisfies the cumulative requirements of section 63D(2) of the Act.
Having failed to be satisfied of AB Nurses’
suitability in relation to some of the matters in

s 63D(3), the decision under review is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a registered company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and has been a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) provider since 27 June 2022.[1] Mr Charanjit Kaur is the Chief Executive Officer and the Applicant’s representative.
[1] T2 p. 162.
On 29 April 2024, the Applicant applied under s 63B of the Act to become an aged care provider of home care.[2]
[2] T2-T9.
On 6 August 2024, a delegate of the Commissioner (original delegate) decided to not approve the Applicant’s application under s 63D of the Act.[3]
[3] T11.
On 16 August 2024, the Applicant requested reconsideration of the decision under s 74K of the Act[4] and provided documents and responses to the findings of the primary delegate.[5]
[4] T12-T12N.
[5] T11.
On 6 November 2024 (within 90 days of receiving the request for review) the decision was affirmed.[6][7]
[6] T13.
On 4 February 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the review delegate’s decision (reconsideration delegate).[8]
[8] T1.
ISSUE FOR THE TRIBUNAL
The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether AB Nurses is suitable to be approved as an aged care provider of home care and that each individual who is one of their key personnel is also suitable. In relation to the suitability factors contained in the Act the Tribunal is tasked with determining:
(a)AB Nurses’ experience in providing, at any time, aged care or other relevant forms of care;
(b)AB Nurses’ demonstrated understanding of their responsibilities as an aged care provider of home care;
(c)the systems that AB Nurses has, or proposes to have, in place to meet their responsibilities as an aged care provider of home care; and
(d)AB Nurses’ record of financial management and the methods that they use, or propose to use, in order to ensure sound financial management.
An important issue for the Tribunal’s consideration, as the Respondent has pointed out, is whether the Applicant’s key personnel, particularly its representative Ms Kaur, is able to demonstrate that what is contained in AB Nurses’ application is the actual knowledge of the Applicant and its personnel themselves, and not reproduced text and language from professional consultants with no ongoing role in the organisation.[9]
[9] Respondent Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) at [5.19].
EVIDENCE
The evidence before the Tribunal was the T documents. Oral evidence was given by Ms Kaur and Mr Singh.
RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Prospective providers wanting to receive Commonwealth subsidies for the provision of aged care must be approved by the Commissioner to do so. The Act provides for approval of applicants as providers of aged care. The object of the Act is to protect and enhance the safety, health, well-being and quality of life of aged care consumers.[10]
[10] Section 5.
The provisions relating to the approval of providers of aged care are contained in Part 7A of the Act. Section 63B of the Act provides for a person to apply to the Commissioner to be approved as a provider of aged care.
Section 63D(2) of the Act requires the Commissioner to be satisfied of three matters before they can approve the person to be a provider. These matters are:
(a)the person is a corporation; and
(b)the person is suitable to provide aged care; and
(c)each individual who is one of the key personnel of the person is suitable to be involved in the provision of aged care.
The meaning of the term ‘key personnel’ of a person or body is set out in s 8B of the Act.
Section 63D(3) of the Act contains a list of factors that the Commissioner must consider when deciding whether the person is suitable to provide aged care. These factors are:
(a)  the person's experience in providing, at any time, aged care or other relevant forms of care;
(b)  the person's demonstrated understanding of the person's responsibilities as a provider of the type of aged care for which approval is sought;
(c)  the systems that the person has, or proposes to have, in place to meet the person's responsibilities as a provider of the type of aged care for which approval is sought;
(d)  the person's record of financial management and the methods that the person uses, or proposes to use, in order to ensure sound financial management;
(e)  if, at any time, the person has been a provider of aged care or other relevant forms of care--the person's conduct as such a provider and the person's compliance with:
(i)  the person's responsibilities as a provider of that care; and
(ii)  the person's obligations arising from the receipt of any payments from the Commonwealth for providing that care;
(ea)  whether the person has at any time been convicted of an indictable offence;
(eb)  whether a civil penalty order against the person has been made at any time;
(f)  any other matters specified in the rules.
Section 63D(4) of the Act provides that when considering a matter referred to in subsections (3)(a), (b), (d), (e) or (f), the Commissioner may also consider the matter in relation to any or all of the key personnel of the person. Further, section 63D(7) of the Act provides that when deciding whether an individual who is one of the key personnel is suitable to be involved in the provision of aged care, the Commissioner must consider the suitability matters in relation to the individual.
Section 63D(6) of the Act provides that the Commissioner may consider other matters beyond the factors in s 63D(3) when deciding whether a person is suitable to provide aged care. Section 63D(8) of the Act further provides that the Commissioner may consider other matters beyond the suitability factors in s 63D(3) when assessing the suitability of key personnel.
Home Care is defined in s 45-3 of the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (AC Act) to be care consisting of a package of personal care services and other personal assistance provided to a person who is not being provided with residential care. That section also provides that the Subsidy Principles 2014 (Subsidy Principles) may specify care that constitutes and does not constitute home care for the purposes of the Act.
The responsibilities of an approved aged care provider are set out in s 54-1 of the AC Act and include:
(a)  to provide such care and services as are specified in the Quality of Care Principles in respect of aged care of the type in question;
(b)  to maintain an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff to ensure that the care needs of care recipients are met;…
(c)  to provide care and services of a quality that is consistent with any rights and responsibilities of care recipients that are specified in the User Rights Principles for the purposes of paragraph   56 – 1(m), 56 – 2(k) or 56 – 3(l);
(d)  to comply with the Aged Care Quality Standards made under section   54 – 2;
(e)  to manage incidents and take reasonable steps to prevent incidents, including through:…
(g)  to comply with the provisions of the Code of Conduct that apply to the approved provider;…
The responsibilities of an approved aged care provider – home care are set out in s 56-2 of the AC Act.
Also relevant are:
(a)
The Aged Care Quality Standards (Standards), which are set out in Schedule 2 to the Quality of Care Principles 2014 (Quality of Care Principles). Sections

54-1(1)(a) and (d) of the AC Act make it a responsibility of approved providers to provide such care and services as specified in the Quality of Care Principles in respect of the relevant type of aged care, and to comply with the Aged Care Quality Standards.
(b)Part 3 of the User Rights Principles 2014 (User Rights Principles), as well as the Charter of Aged Care Rights, appearing at Schedule 1 to the User Rights Principles. Section 54-1(1)(c) of the AC Act makes it a responsibility of approved providers to provide care and services of a quality consistent with the rights and responsibilities of care recipients specified in the User Rights Principles. Subsections 56-2(f), (j), (k) and (l) of the AC Act also make it a responsibility of approved providers of home care to comply with various other requirements in the User Rights Principles.
(c)
The Accountability Principles 2014 (Accountability Principles). Subsections

63-1(1)(g), (ha), (hb), (hc) and (m) of the AC Act make it a responsibility of approved providers to comply with various requirements of those Principles. Subsection

63-1(1)(a) also require compliance in relation to the keeping and retaining of records including requirements in the Records Principles 2014 (Records Principles).
PARTIES SUBMISSIONS
Applicant
The Applicant provided the Tribunal with a ‘AAT Submission Statement in Support of Application for Review’ (Applicant’s statement). The main points in the Applicant’s statement are that:
(a)The reconsideration delegate failed to appropriately weigh the acknowledged strengths of the organisation, including the suitability of the key personnel and our demonstrated financial capacity.
(b)The Commission clearly found the leadership team to be qualified and experienced in governance, clinical care, and financial management, with no concerns raised regarding their integrity, skill, or capacity; so it follows that such a team should be trusted to implement, refine, and improve the organisation’s systems over time, as is standard practice for newly approved providers.
(c)Much of the Commission’s rejection centres around the policies and procedures and whether they sufficiently evidence operational readiness. This overlooks the nature of policy documents as evolving frameworks.
(d)The Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM), while consultant-prepared, meets a reasonable industry standard as acknowledged in the original decision. Many approved providers begin with similar frameworks and adapt them during implementation and the team is committed to a continuous improvement process.
(e)The focus on minor omissions or lack of specific procedural examples should not outweigh the overarching strengths of AB Nurses’ systems, governance structure, and intent to operate responsibly.
(f)
There are inconsistencies in the Commission’s treatment of certain matters under

s 63D of the Act because while the original decision concluded there were no adverse findings under s 63D(6) of the Act, the reconsideration decision revisits issues and raises new concerns.
(g)The concerns regarding care planning, incident management, and compliance obligations are either overstated or based on interpretation rather than capability.
(h)AB Nurses policies do not lack intent or seriousness—they are designed to offer professional flexibility to registered staff and a rigid, checkbox-based interpretation does not align with person-centred care principles.
(i)AB Nurses is governed by a capable and Commission-vetted team, has the financial capacity to operate, and has committed to implementing systems and processes that ensure quality, safety, and compliance.
(j)AB Nurses should not be penalised for technical or administrative deficiencies that can and will be resolved through normal governance and improvement mechanisms once operational.
Respondent
The Commissioner submits that the standard of suitability that a person must meet to be permitted to provide Commonwealth-funded aged care is a stringent one and that this becomes apparent when regard is had to the features of the legislative scheme. To support this point examples were provided of the objects of both the Act and the AC Act which include the promotion of high quality of care and consumer protection.[11]
[11] Respondent Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) at [3.6]-[3.10].
The Respondent provided a further example of the various requirements contained in the Standards and Principles that an approved provider of aged care is required to comply with. These Standards and Principles include:
(a)the Standards, which are set out in Schedule 2 to the Quality of Care Principles;
(b)the User Rights Principles), as well as the Charter of Aged Care Rights, appearing at Schedule 1 to the User Rights Principles;
(c)the Accountability Principles; and
(d)the Records Principles.
The Respondent also submits that the Applicant:
(a)
does not have experience in the delivery of aged care services under the Act

(s 63D(3)(a));[12]
(b)failed to demonstrate a sound knowledge of the responsibilities of an approved provider (s 63D(3)(b);[13]
(c)does not have systems relating to compliance with its workforce governance obligations and other regulatory obligations and does not demonstrate effective risk management systems and practices, so has failed to demonstrate that the systems it has, or proposes to have, in place will assist it to comply with its responsibilities as a provider of home care (s 63D(3)(c));[14] and
(d)is a relatively new company with a very limited record of financial management on which it can rely and so this matter needs to be considered, in the main, against any proven experience of the key personnel and the systems proposed to be in place should the applicant be approved to provide aged care (s 63D(3)(d)).[15]
[12] Ibid at [5.6].
[13] Ibid at [5.20]-[5.28].
[14] Ibid at [5.31]-[5.32].
[15] Ibid at [5.34].
CONSIDERATION
The Respondent points out that as the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the original decision maker it is not bound by the previous findings of the delegates and must find for itself that the Applicant and its key personnel satisfy the requirements in the Act.[16]
[16] SFIC at [5.7].
Experience in providing aged care or other relevant forms of care (s 63D(3)(a)).
The reconsideration delegate did not reconsider the original delegate’s findings that AB Nurses had experience in providing aged care or other relevant forms of care.[17]
[17] T1, p. 15.
The key consideration for the Tribunal in relation to considering AB Nurses’ experience in providing aged care is the relevance of experience in providing care under the NDIS.
The degree of reliance on the expertise of consultants is also a relevant consideration for this requirement but as this is a key consideration to a finding of suitability under s 63D(3)(b) of the Act, it will be dealt with in that context.
The Respondent referred me to the Tribunal’s decision in AussieCare Foundation Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner (AussieCare)[18] where it was said that the fact that a person is an approved NDIS provider is not, of itself, determinative of whether that person meets the various requirements mandated by s 63D(3) of the Act because if that was the case the Act would allow for the automatic approval of an NDIS provider as an aged care provider upon application.[19]
[18] [2023] AATA 2220.
[19] AussieCare at [100].
Conversely, the fact that an applicant is an approved NDIS provider is a relevant consideration and that if such an applicant has a long history of compliance with the regulatory responsibilities mandated by the NDIS, then it may be a highly relevant consideration.[20]
[20] Ibid.
AB Nurses has been a NDIS provider since June 2022.[21]
[21] SFIC at [5.4].
At the hearing, the Applicant submitted that AB Nurses has been operating a business for 4 years and as an approved NDIS provider already provides care services to older adults. When questioned, Ms Kaur was able to explain the similarities and differences in terms of providing care under the NDIS systems as opposed to under the aged care system. She rightly pointed out that while similar type of services may be provided to consumers–for example, help with personal care, domestic and social support services–that the regimes are separately regulated and the individual scheme standards are required to be met.
At the time of the hearing, AB Nurses was seeking renewal of its NDIS registration. This process is now complete, and AB Nurses’ registration is in force until September 2028.[22] Its approved registration groups include[23]:
[22] ‘AB Nurses Support Services’, NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (Web Page, accessed 13 October 2025) < Ibid.
·Daily Tasks/Shared Living
·Innov Community Participation
·Specialised Disability Accommodation
·Assist-Personal Activities
·Community Nursing Care
·Assist Personal Activities High
·Assist-Life Stage, Transition
·Participate Community
·Assist-Travel/Transport
·Accommodation/Tenancy
·Development-Life Skills
·Household Tasks
·Plan Management
·Group/Centre Activities
·Support Coordination.
It is acceptably clear to the Tribunal that the Applicant has significant experience in the provision of aged care and other relevant forms of care satisfying the requirement in

s 63D(3)(a) of the Act.
However, I also need to consider whether its key personnel are suitable to be involved in the provision of aged care with consideration to the suitability factors including the requirements in s63D(3)(a).
The key personnel of the applicant are:
(a)Ms Charanjit Kaur, Chief Executive Officer and Director;
(b)Mr Manjit Singh, HR and Admin Manager;
(c)Ms Kiranjit Kaur, Corporate Service Manager;
(d)Mr Mobeen Malik, Financial Manager; and
(e)Ms Jaspreet Kaur, Care Provider.
Only Ms Charanjit Kaur and Mr Singh made themselves available as witnesses before the Tribunal. This is because Ms Kaur did not consider it necessary to make all the key personnel available for cross-examination by the Respondent’s Counsel given that their qualifications had already been provided to the Commission and the delegates findings on their suitability.
Ms Kiranjit Kaur and Ms Jasprett Kaur were not available for cross-examination before the Tribunal. While this denied the Tribunal the opportunity to probe further the evidence that had been provided regarding their experience and expertise, in reviewing the evidence and the original delegate’s conclusions, I am satisfied overall these two key personnel satisfy the suitability factors.
Ms Charanjit Kaur

AB Nurses’ application for approval to provide aged care states that[24]:
as the leader of AB Nurse, Ms Kaur assumes the vital role of establishing both long-term and short-term organizational goals. Responsibilities include strategic planning, efficient management, risk assessment, and overseeing the work of team members. Charanjit Kar also plays a crucial role in managing clinical care and tasks, including conducting assessments to ensure optimal service delivery.
[24] T2, p. 64.
At the hearing, Ms Kaur was asked to explain to the Tribunal how her experience as a nurse in providing care translates to the role of CEO of an aged care provider of home care. Ms Kaur’s response was that she was a charge nurse when she worked as a registered nurse and a care coordinator when working in aged care. She also referred to the ‘foundU’ app as assisting her with workforce management and that she had a diploma in leadership.
The key personnel individual details section of the application for approval to provide aged care for Ms Kaur details her experience as a registered nurse.[25] It does not provide details of experience and qualification suitable for her proposed key personnel role as CEO and Director.
[25] T2, p. 77.
Aside from the experience she has gained in her current role as CEO of AB Nurses, there was very little evidence before the Tribunal that Ms Kaur has the adequate skills, experience and qualifications suitable for her proposed key personnel role as CEO and Director. Ms Kaur’s testimony failed to display that she has obtained the practical knowledge and skills required to manage and be responsible for an aged care provider of home care.
I accept that she has experience in the provision of care services including aged care, however based on the information and evidence provided, I am not satisfied that Ms Kaur has demonstrated that she has the adequate skills, experience and qualifications suitable for her proposed key personnel role as CEO and Director.
Mr Manjit Singh
AB Nurses’ application for approval to provide aged care states that:[26]
Manit Singh's role is instrumental in shaping the organizational culture and ensuring that HR practices align with the unique needs of aged care.
• Effective workforce recruitment and management are critical in maintaining a skilled and compassionate team to deliver quality care to aged care recipients.
• Strategic HR planning contributes to creating a positive work environment that enhances staff retention and satisfaction, positively impacting the overall quality of aged care services.
• Compliance with employment laws and regulations is crucial in the aged care sector, where adherence to standards is paramount for ensuring the well-being and safety of both employees and aged care recipients.
[26] T2, p. 82.
At the hearing, Mr Singh was asked questions in respect of his roles and responsibilities at AB Nurses. Mr Singh confirmed he had a Certificate III in aged care and a diploma and advanced diploma and Certificate IV in business. He also confirmed his experience in providing personal care to aged care consumers. Mr Singh referred to the use of the ‘BrightHR’ app to assist him with keeping track of staff movements and training. The evidence Mr Singh gave did not establish that he has the knowledge and experience that is stated above in relation to his role.
In closing submissions, Counsel for the Respondent said that the Applicant’s oral evidence simply did not progress their case. I tend to agree. I found Mr Singh’s evidence regarding recruitment, staff training and requirements of the new aged care legislation to be deficient in knowledge and understanding of the importance of robust processes and systems to ensure compliance. I am not satisfied that Mr Singh has demonstrated that he has the adequate knowledge, skills and experience suitable for his proposed key personnel role as HR/Admin Manager. Aside from performing that role currently at AB Nurses, no details of other relevant work experience have been provided.
Mr Malik
AB Nurses application for approval to provide aged care states that[27]:
Mobeen Malik's role as Finance Manager is crucial in ensuring the financial viability of AB Nurses Support Services, directly impacting the organization's ability to provide high-quality aged care services.
• Aged care financial duties involve managing client budgets, claiming subsidy payments, and optimizing financial processes within the unique regulatory framework of the aged care sector.
• Accurate financial reporting and compliance with regulations are essential in maintaining transparency and accountability, critical aspects in the provision of aged care services.
This comprehensive role description for Mobeen Malik highlights the dual focus of his responsibilities, encompassing general financial management and specialized financial duties within the aged care context.
[27] T2, p. 92.
Mr Mobeen is a Certified Practising Accountant and has worked with RMM Consultant Company since 2018 with responsibilities for payroll, tax compliance, budget oversight, financial reporting and audit support.[28] Both the original and reconsideration delegate were satisfied that Mr Malik had sufficient experience.
[28] Ibid.
The Respondent states that it is not clear whether Mr Mobeen Malik will be employed or contracted by the Applicant to perform the key personnel role of Financial Manager.[29] The application states that he is employed by RMM Consultants.[30] It was clear from the testimony given by Ms Kaur that Mr Malik is a consultant and not an employee or an independent contractor of AB Nurses. While his qualifications and experience are relevant for his intended role, it was very unclear from Ms Kaur’s testimony how exactly Mr Malik would be undertaking the Finance Manager role at AB Nurses when he is employed elsewhere and providing similar type of assistance to other clients.
[29] T10, p. 499.
[30] Ibid.
The unreliability of the evidence in relation to Mr Malik makes it difficult for me to be satisfied that Mr Malik has or would have day-to-day responsibility for ensuring the sound financial management of AB Nurses, helping it to meet its legislative responsibilities.
Demonstrated understanding of responsibilities as a provider of aged care (s 63D(3)(b))
Both the original and reconsideration delegate were not satisfied that AB Nurses had demonstrated an understanding of its responsibilities as an aged care provider of home care. The reconsideration delegate outlined at length what they considered to be the shortcomings of the application in relation to this requirement.[31]
[31] T1, pp. 16-38.
The reconsideration delegate stated that[32]:
overall, the policies and procedures appear generic, with little evidence of customisation to their operations. It could have benefitted you applying your key personnel’s experience in the health sector to tailor your policies to daily operations, rather than relying on purchased templates.
[32] T1, p. 42.
Previous Tribunal decisions have dealt with the issue of the use of consultants in preparing applicants to be a provider of aged care, for example:
(f)In AussieCare, Deputy President Sosso found in that the use of a consultant (and its system) added to the Applicant’s understanding but did not replace it.[33]
(g)In Caring Home Care Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner,[34] Deputy President Cowdroy found that the fact that other sources have been used to formulate the policies does not render them invalid, however in that case the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the Applicant had a clear understanding of its responsibilities as an approved provider of home care.[35]
(h)In Amana Community Services and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner,[36] Senior Member Poljak accepted that the use of a consultant is standard practice in the healthcare industry for applications such as these and that policies are regularly bough ‘off-the-shelf’.[37]
(i)In Better Disability Care Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner (Better Disability Care),[38] Member Maryniak KC said that whilst the use of a consultant of itself is not fatal, the extent of involvement and contribution established on the evidence in that case highlighted important deficiencies in the knowledge and experience of the key personnel of the Applicant, and hence the Applicant.[39] It was also said that the initial application document itself was a mosaic of templates and it was clear from the evidence that the provenance of the Business Plan and many of the foundation documents to the application were not that of either the Applicant or the key personnel or the Applicant
[33] AussieCare at [107].
[34] [2021] AATA 24.
[35] [2021] AATA 24 at [75].
[36] [2024] AATA 2984.
[37] [2024] AATA 2984 at [30].
[38] [2024] AATA 3593.
[39] Better Disability Care at [18].
In Better Disability Care it was found that the applicant had only a very limited knowledge of the various components of the documents prepared in support of the application and lacked a depth of knowledge as to their relevance and significance.[40]
[40] Better Disability Care at [19].
The Tribunal has not been able to glean from the evidence before it that AB Nurses, currently, demonstrates a sufficient understanding of their responsibilities, necessary for registration. Ms Kaur’s evidence demonstrated she had limited knowledge of the requirements to be an approved provider of aged care services, and it became clear that there had been an overreliance on the knowledge of contractors.
As stated above, it has been found previously by the Tribunal that whether the use of consultants will be fatal to the success of an Applicant’s case will depend on the extent of their involvement and contribution as established on the evidence.[41] In this case, the evidence has established that the use of consultants has masked the extent of the Applicant’s understanding of its responsibilities. It was clear from the evidence, that the provenance of many aspects of the application and its supporting documents were not that of the Applicant.
[41] Ibid at [18].
In her testimony, Ms Kaur admitted that Applicant’s PPM had been prepared by consultants, but they had not assisted with any other matters regarding the application. When questioned, neither Ms Kaur nor Mr Singh were able to provide clear insights into AB Nurses’ PPM which should have been well known to them even if originally prepared by a consultant.
It is also not clear to me that the documents provided to the Respondent prior to the hearing, and later to the Tribunal at the hearing, titled ‘ART Hearing Argument Plan – AB Nurses Support Services Pty Ltd Our Case: Why the Decision Should Be Overturned Even the provenance of AB Nurses’ and ‘AAT Submission – Statement in Support of Application for Review’ are the provenance of AB Nurses. Ms Kaur confirmed at the hearing that she wrote both documents. However, when Ms Kaur was asked by the Respondent’s counsel to elaborate on the points in the ‘ART Hearing Argument Plan’ she was again unable to provide detailed, relevant or coherent evidence about their content.
I have had regard to the Applicant’s history as an approved NDIS provider, however given the significant deficiencies that have been identified by the Commissioner in the Applicant’s application and supporting documents that have not been adequately addressed in oral or written evidence or submissions, I am unable to be satisfied that the requirements of s63D(3)(b) of the Act have been met.
Systems or proposed systems, to meet the responsibilities as a provider of aged care
This requirement focuses on the governance systems that are or will be in place to ensure compliance with requirements and responsibilities under the Act.
The Respondent submits that the Applicant does not have systems relating to compliance with its workforce governance obligations, regulatory obligations, and does not demonstrate effective risk management systems and practices.[42]
[42] Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [5.31].
Ms Kaur’s oral evidence did not assist the Tribunal with looking past the somewhat jargonistic language contained in the Applicant’s application, so it did not confirm to me that the assistance of consultants in preparing the application added to (rather than replaced) her understanding of optimal organisational structure and governance to ensure compliance. For example, when asked about the current risks faced by AB Nurses in being an approved provider of aged care, Ms Kaur was unable to provide detailed, relevant or coherent evidence.
Given the significant deficiencies that have been identified by the Commissioner in the Applicant’s application and supporting documents that have not been adequately addressed in oral or written evidence or submissions, I am unable to be satisfied that the requirements of s 63D(3)(c) of the Act have been met.
Record of financial management and the methods that the person uses, or proposes to use, in order to ensure sound financial management
The reconsideration delegate agreed with the findings of the original delegate that this legislative requirement had been met.
The Applicant’s application states[43]:
AB Nurses Support Services has implemented a robust financial governance system to ensure transparency, accountability, and compliance with regulatory requirements. Our financial operations are meticulously managed through the Financial Management policy and procedure, which serves as our guiding framework.
[43] T2, p. 106.
The original delegate found that Mr Malik would have adequate financial experience, however as stated above it was revealed at the hearing that Mr Malik’s relationship with the Applicant is not an employment one.
It follows from my finding above in relation to Mr Malik that the Applicant is lacking the

in-house resources to ensure the overall sound financial management of the business and I am unable to be satisfied that the requirements of s 63D(3)(d) of the Act have been met.
CONCLUSION
As stated in previous Tribunal decisions, the responsibilities of approved providers of aged care under aged care Acts are intentionally onerous in order to ensure aged care recipients are provided with high quality care and that their safety, health, well-being and quality of life are protected.
Having determined that AB Nurses is not suitable to provide aged care in accordance with ss 63D(2)(a)-(d), the decision under review is affirmed.

Date(s) of hearing: 19 August 2025

Advocate for the Applicant: Ms Charanjit Kaur

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Cunningham, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[7] T13 and T13A.

Date(s) of hearing:	19 August 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms Charanjit Kaur
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Cunningham, Sparke Helmore Lawyers