AbilitySeer Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

AbilitySeer Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2022] AATA 2129 (1 July 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/8643
Re:AbilitySeer Pty Ltd
APPLICANT

AndAustralian Skills Quality Authority
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member W Frost
Date:1 July 2022
Place:Canberra

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
........................[sgd]....................................
Member W Frost
Catchwords
Vocational Education and Training – Application for accreditation of a vocational and education training course – NDIS Support Coordination – Compliance with legislative requirements and standards – established industry, enterprise, education, legislative or community need – developed in consultation with, and validated by, industry, enterprise, community and/or professional groups – duplication and technical defects – limited support from peak bodies and organisations – adequacy of the course – decision affirmed
Legislation
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 ss 2A, 3, 43, 44, 116, 155, 188, 199, 200, 201, 203
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 25, 42B, 43
Secondary Materials
Australian industry and Skills Committee (Web Page)< for VET Accredited Courses 2012
Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member W Frost
1 July 2022
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, AbilitySeer Pty Ltd (AbilitySeer), sought merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) of a decision made by the Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), as the ‘National VET Regulator’ under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVR Act). ASQA’s decision rejected AbilitySeer’s application for accreditation of its proposed vocational education and training (VET) course in ‘National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Support Coordination’ (Course).
The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence and submissions in this proceeding. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision under review to reject the application for accreditation of AbilitySeer’s Course should be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
ASQA accredits and regulates VET courses for delivery by registered training organisations pursuant to the NVR Act.
On 20 November 2019, AbilitySeer submitted to ASQA a ‘VET course concept – initial accreditation’ form for its proposed Course in ‘NDIS Support Coordination’.[1] The rationale for seeking national recognition by ASQA was relevantly stated by AbilitySeer to be that:[2]
Since the roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), many organisations have raised the lack of training…for this specialised topic.
People with Disability across Australia rely on Support Coordinators to assist them to implement their NDIS plans, and achieve their NDIS plan goals.
A need for national recognition exists for this course.
Since September 2017 AbilitySeer’s Tim O’Hare (General Manager) began presenting unaccredited training to community organisations, and NDIS registered providers nationally.
[1] Exhibit 1, T3, pages 15-30.
[2] Ibid., page 20.
AbilitySeer further stated in its accreditation application form that the target or client group for the Course will be ‘domestic students working in the community sector working with people with disability’, many of whom will be ‘employees of NDIS registered providers’, and the Course ‘would also be of interest to people with lived experience of disability’.[3] The essential entry requirements for the Course were stated to be a Year 12 Certificate. The ‘enterprise units of competency’ for inclusion in the Course were said to be: ‘History of the National Disability Insurance Scheme’; ‘NDIS Law and Policy’; ‘Support Coordinators’ Role and Responsibilities’; ‘Review Processes’; ‘Understanding NDIS Plans’; ‘Understanding the Price Guide’; and ‘Ethics and Professional Responsibility for Support Coordinators’.[4]
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., pages 21 and 23-24.
The section of ASQA’s initial accreditation form in relation to stakeholder engagement relevantly stated that:[5]
[5] Ibid., page 25.
Evidence of engagement with other industry stakeholders to demonstrate there is a need and support for national recognition of the course must be submitted with this application.
If the course is intended to meet a regulatory or licensed outcome, support from the relevant industry regulator must be provided with this application.
…
Provide evidence to confirm agreement by people that have been contacted to be engaged in the development and validation of the course content.
Stakeholders relevant to the proposed course such as:
·Skills Service Organisations (SSOs) and/or Industry Reference Councils (IRCs)
·Peak industry bodies
·Industry associations
·Industry representatives
·Employer associations
·Employees
·Course graduates
·A representative with VET experience and knowledge (highly recommended).
Confirmation of stakeholder engagement can be provided via signature, email or letter.
AbilitySeer listed in the completed accreditation form stakeholder engagement with National Disability Services (NDS); the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; and attendees of all of its unaccredited training workshops.[6] AbilitySeer confirmed in the form that the relevant Skills Service Organisation (SSO) for the disability sector was ‘SkillsIQ’.[7] This organisation supports 19 Industry Reference Committees that are responsible for the maintenance of national training packages.[8] Training packages relevantly include units of competency and qualifications required by individuals to perform effectively in a specific industry or sector.
[6] Ibid., page 26.
[7] Ibid., page 27.
[8] Exhibit 4, R2, page 6.
On 6 December 2019, ASQA notified AbilitySeer that its application for initial course accreditation was ‘incomplete’ and requested further details, including why the Course should be nationally recognised and evidence of key stakeholders’ willingness to be involved in the development process for the Course.[9]
[9] Exhibit 1, T6, pages 34-35.
On 12 December 2019, AbilitySeer provided further details regarding the Course.[10]
[10] Exhibit 1, T7, pages 36-38; T8, pages 39-46.
On 13 December 2019, ASQA informed AbilitySeer that it ‘must provide evidence that all listed stakeholders are aware of and supportive of your proposal to accredit the course’.[11]
[11] Exhibit 1, T9, page 47.
On 17 December 2019, AbilitySeer emailed ASQA with feedback forms from one of its unaccredited training workshops and, as evidence of stakeholder consultation on the Course, stated that it had contacted the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, NDS, SkillsIQ, TAFE NSW and a ‘range of community organisations’ requesting their support.[12] AbilitySeer also provided copies of emails it had sent on the same day to the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, NDS and SkillsIQ following up on its emails to the first two entities from November 2019 and inviting input from all three entities on the content of the Course.[13]
[12] Exhibit 1, T10, pages 50-51; and T11, pages 52-93.
[13] Exhibit 1, T12, pages 94-101.
On 18 December 2019, AbilitySeer provided correspondence to ASQA of the same date from Caring Approach Pty Ltd and St Benedicts Community Centre in support of training and skilling NDIS Support Coordinators ‘to an acceptable standard’.[14]
[14] Exhibit 1, T14, page 103; T15, page 105.
On 7 January 2020, ASQA confirmed to AbilitySeer that its ‘VET course concept has been assessed and meets eligibility requirements to proceed to course development’. It also noted that:[15]
You have 12 months from the date of this notice to engage with key stakeholders, including Industry Reference Committees and/or Skills Service Organisations, and fully develop the course against the requirements of the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2012, Standards for Training Packages 2012 and the Australian Qualifications Framework Edition, January 2013.
[15] Exhibit 1, T16, page 106.
On 12 May 2020, AbilitySeer applied to ASQA for accreditation of the Course and stated that the nominal volume of learning was 38 hours, comprising 18 supervised hours and 20 unsupervised hours.[16] It also stated that support for the Course ‘has been provided by both large and small NDIS service providers, Advocacy organisations, peak bodies and people with lived experience of disability’.[17]
[16] Exhibit 1, T17, pages 107-108; T18, pages 109-123; T19, pages 124-155; T20, pages 156-287; and T21, pages 288-295.
[17] Exhibit 1, T19, page 129.
On 23 June 2020, ASQA informed AbilitySeer that its application for accreditation of the Course ‘was not fully compliant with the requirements of the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2012 (Standards) and/or the Australian Qualifications Framework’.[18] ASQA’s accompanying Accreditation Evaluation Report on the Course noted that all course design standards under the Standards for VET Accredited Courses (or VAC) must be met for a course to be accredited by ASQA. In this regard, the Accreditation Evaluation Report found that the Course was not compliant with certain course design standards, being VAC 7.1, VAC 7.2, VAC 7.6, VAC 7.7, VAC 7.11 and VAC 7.12 in the Standards (which are further detailed below in these reasons).[19]
[18] Exhibit 1, T26, pages 300-301.
[19] Exhibit 1, T28, page 308. See also Exhibit 1, T28, pages 311-322.
In July 2020, AbilitySeer and ASQA corresponded regarding the former’s amended accreditation documentation and rectification evidence for the Course.[20]
[20] Exhibit 1, T29 to T37, pages 323-388.
On 20 August 2020, ASQA rejected AbilitySeer’s application for accreditation of the Course under section 44 of the NVR Act, because it found that the Course ‘does not meet the requirements for accreditation in that it does not comply with the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2012 and the Australian Qualifications Framework’.[21] ASQA determined that the Course remained non-compliant with VAC 7.1, which requires that courses are based on an established industry, enterprise, education, legislative or community need; VAC 7.2, requiring courses to be based on nationally endorsed units of competency or units of competency developed to meet the requirements of the Standards for Training Packages; VAC 7.6, requiring that courses specify rules for the structure of the course; VAC 7.11, requiring courses to provide guidance on delivery modes, advice on limitations to delivery modes and any requirements for on-the-job training; and VAC 7.12, requiring that courses specify specialist facilities and resources the vocational competency requirements of trainers and assessors essential for delivery of the course.[22]
[21] Exhibit 1, T40, pages 392-396.
[22] Ibid., pages 392-393.
On 21 August 2020, AbilitySeer was informed that ASQA had rejected its application for accreditation of the Course as a ‘VET accredited course’.[23]
[23] Exhibit 1, T41, page 397; T42, pages 398-399; and T43, pages 400-416.
On 18 September 2020, AbilitySeer requested reconsideration by ASQA of its rejection decision.[24]
[24] Exhibit 1, T47 to T56, pages 423-689.
On 21 October 2020, the SSO, SkillsIQ, informed AbilitySeer that:[25]
Following consultation with representatives of the Disability Support IRC [IRC], we cannot support the course concept in its current form. Given the significance of the job role, it is not considered adequate that this important training can be undertaken via only the two enterprise units of competency outlined in your course concept.
Please note that the NDIS Support Coordinator role is being considered in the current Training Package update process, which has commenced and is due to be completed in June 2021.
[25] Exhibit 1, T62, page 724.
On 27 November 2020, the Chief Commissioner of ASQA, as the ‘National VET Regulator’, affirmed the decision to reject AbilitySeer’s application for accreditation of the Course based on the following non-compliance with the Standards:[26]
·Evidence of peak bodies’ involvement and support for the course has not been provided. The SSO, SkillsIQ, and the Disability Support Industry Reference Committee (IRC) do not support the development of the course due to its current course structure and that the NDIS Support Coordinator role is being considered in the current Training Package update process. (VAC 7.1)
·The enterprise units of competency, as written, do not meet the requirements of the Standards for Training Packages. Significant non−compliance remains with the content and structure of the enterprise units developed for inclusion in this course. (VAC 7.2)
·Due to significant non−compliance remaining across the enterprise units of competency, it still cannot be determined if the units included in the course structure reflect the intended skill and knowledge outcomes. Concerns have also been raised by the SSO regarding adequacy of the proposed training considering the significance of the job role. (VAC 7.6)
·The course does not specify specialist facilities and resources essential for delivery of the course as required for simulated off-the-job assessment. [VAC 7.11]
[26] Exhibit 1, T63, pages 725-728.
On 9 December 2020, AbilitySeer was informed that ASQA had affirmed the decision to reject its application for accreditation of the Course.[27]
[27] Exhibit 1, T69, page 806; and T70, pages 807-816.
On 29 December 2020, AbilitySeer applied to the Tribunal for merits review of the decision to reject accreditation of the Course.[28]
[28] Exhibit 1, T1, pages 1-9.
In March 2021, ASQA applied to the Tribunal for dismissal of AbilitySeer’s application under subsection 42B(1)(b) of the AAT Act, where an application for review may be dismissed if the Tribunal is satisfied that it has no reasonable prospect of success. ASQA submitted that it was open to the Tribunal to dismiss AbilitySeer’s application for the following reasons:
(a)pursuant to section 116 of the NVR Act, AbilitySeer is not a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) and is therefore prevented from delivering an accredited VET course;
(b)AbilitySeer is not compliant with the Standards, specifically VAC 7, and therefore cannot comply with section 44 of the NVR Act regarding accreditation of a VET course; and
(c)if AbilitySeer were to become compliant with VAC 7 and the Course was accredited, the only way it could be delivered would be if AbilitySeer partnered with an RTO and then only until such time as the separately developed Disability Support Training Package (Training Package) is released; and continuing delivery of the Course after release of the Training Package would be a duplication of the outcomes of the Training Package and therefore breach VAC 6 of the Standards. Under the direction of the Disability Support IRC, SkillsIQ has updated the Training Package, which contains updates to the qualifications and units of competency within the Certificate III in Individual Support and the Certificate IV in Disability Support, including in relation to support coordination in the NDIS.[29]
[29] Exhibit 6; Exhibit 4, R3-R11, pages 8-68.
In May 2021, the Tribunal refused ASQA’s dismissal application because it was not then satisfied, based on the available evidence, that AbilitySeer’s application had no reasonable prospect of success, including in circumstances where the separately developed Training Package had not yet been endorsed and released.
On 18 October 2021, ASQA applied to the Tribunal, pursuant to section 25(4A) of the AAT Act, for an order limiting the review at the substantive hearing scheduled to commence the following day. The Respondent proposed that the Tribunal deal only with the question of whether it was required to affirm ASQA’s decision due to the application of VAC 6.1, in circumstances where, it was submitted, AbilitySeer’s proposed Course duplicates, by title or coverage, the outcomes of the Training Package. The application was made on the basis that all other issues in the proceeding would be redundant if duplication under VAC 6.1 was established. To this end, ASQA submitted that, on 12 October 2021, the Training Package was approved by the Australian Industry and Skills Committee (AISC) and had been referred to Commonwealth Skills’ Ministers for endorsement, which is the final stage of the Training Package development process. Accordingly, once endorsed by a majority of the Skills’ Ministers, the Training Package products would be made available for implementation through publication on the National Register of VET and enliven VAC 6.1 in relation to duplication. ASQA applied for an adjournment of the balance of the Tribunal hearing to await a decision about endorsement of the Training Package by the Skills’ Ministers, which would establish duplication under VAC 6.1 and make any further hearing redundant.
On 19 October 2021, at the scheduled substantive hearing of AbilitySeer’s application, and given the status of the Training Package, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing until 8 and 9 December 2021 and made the following relevant directions:
1. On or before 2 November 2021, the Respondent must provide the Tribunal and the Applicant with formal notification of the Australian Industry Skills Committee (AISC) decision made on 12 October 2021, approving the 'CHC Community Services Training Package Individual Support, Ageing and Disability Support' (Training Package), or the related AISC meeting communiqué.
2. On or before 16 November 2021, the Respondent must inform the Tribunal and the Applicant whether the Training Package has been endorsed by the Skills Ministers.
3. Subject to the endorsement of the Training Package, on or before 23 November 2021, the Applicant must inform the Tribunal and the Respondent whether it is proceeding with, or withdrawing, its application.
On 16 November 2021, ASQA advised that the Skills’ Ministers had not considered the Training Package.
On 17 November 2021, the Tribunal made the following relevant directions:
1. On or before 26 November 2021, the Respondent must inform the Tribunal and the Applicant whether the Training Package has been endorsed by the Skills Ministers.
2. Subject to the endorsement of the Training Package, on or before 3 December 2021, the Applicant must inform the Tribunal and the Respondent whether it is proceeding with, or withdrawing, its application.
On 1 December 2021, ASQA again requested that the substantive Tribunal hearing be adjourned until February 2022 to await the outcome of the Skills’ Ministers’ decision on the Training Package and advised that a decision was anticipated to be made by the end of 2021.
On 3 December 2021, the Tribunal at a directions hearing adjourned the substantive hearing to 16 and 17 February 2022, and made the following relevant directions:
1. On or before 14 January 2022, the Respondent must inform the Tribunal and the Applicant whether the Training Package has been endorsed by the Skills Ministers.
2. Subject to the endorsement of the Training Package, on or before 21 January 2022, the Applicant must inform the Tribunal and the Respondent whether it is proceeding with, or withdrawing, its application.
On 14 January 2022, ASQA confirmed that the Training Package had not yet been endorsed by the Skills’ Ministers and that it may be ‘some months’ before the new qualification was endorsed and uploaded to the National Register.
On 24 January 2022, pursuant to the Tribunal’s direction, AbilitySeer confirmed that it was proceeding with the application. ASQA reconfirmed its position that the Tribunal hearing should be deferred to await the outcome of the Skills’ Ministers’ consideration of the Training Package and requested the Tribunal hearing listed for February 2022 be vacated due to the unavailability of its previously instructed Counsel. ASQA told the Tribunal that this issue had not previously been raised because, among other things, it expected the Training Package would have been endorsed by January 2022, thus ‘rendering the February hearing unnecessary’. ASQA proposed alternative hearing dates with new Counsel. The Tribunal re-listed the hearing for 7 and 8 April 2022 and proceeded with the substantive hearing on these dates, noting that the Skills’ Ministers had not by that time endorsed the Training Package.
ISSUE

The issue for the Tribunal in this proceeding is whether it should grant AbilitySeer’s application for accreditation of the Course under section 44 of the NVR Act.
LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS
The NVR Act
The NVR Act provides a framework for the national regulation of vocational education and training (or VET) in Australia. Under section 155 of the NVR Act, the Chief Executive Officer of ASQA is the National VET Regulator.
Section 2A of the NVR Act states that the objects of the NVR Act are as follows:
(a) to provide for national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET); and
(b) to regulate VET using:
(i) a standards-based quality framework; and
(ii) risk assessments, where appropriate; and
(c) to protect and enhance:
(i) quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and
(ii) Australia's reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and
(d) to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population; and
(e) to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and
(f) to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET.
Under section 43 of the NVR Act, a person may apply to ASQA for the accreditation of a course as a ‘VET accredited course’. Section 3 of the NVR Act relevantly provides that a ‘course’ means a course of vocational education and training and that a ‘VET accredited course’ is a course accredited by the National VET Regulator.
Section 44 of the NVR Act relevantly provides that:
(1) The National VET Regulator may grant an application for the accreditation of a course.
(2) In deciding whether to grant an application, the National VET Regulator must consider whether the course meets:
(a) the Standards for VET Accredited Courses; and
(b) the Australian Qualifications Framework.
Section 199 of the NVR Act sets out which decisions of the National VET Regulator are reviewable decisions. This includes a decision by the National VET Regulator to reject an application for accreditation of a course as a ‘VET accredited course’ under section 44 of the NVR Act. Under section 200 of the NVR Act, a person affected by a reviewable decision who is dissatisfied with the decision may apply to ASQA for reconsideration of that decision and, pursuant to subsection 201(1) of the NVR Act, the National VET Regulator must reconsider the decision and affirm, vary or revoke the decision.
Under subsection 203(1) of the NVR Act, applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision if the National VET Regulator has affirmed or varied the decision under section 201. Accordingly, the decision by the CEO of ASQA, as the National VET Regulator, to affirm the decision to reject AbilitySeer’s application for accreditation of the Course as a VET accredited course is reviewable by the Tribunal.
Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2012
Pursuant to section 188 of the NVR Act, the Minister may, by legislative instrument, make standards for VET accredited courses. In 2013, the Minister made the Standards the subject of this proceeding. ASQA regulates VET accredited courses under the Standards, which are also referred to by the abbreviation ‘VAC’, as set out under VAC 3.2.
The Standards were repealed by the Standards for VET Accredited Courses 2021 (2021 Standards), which commenced when they were registered on 22 March 2021. However, clause 5(3) of the 2021 Standards provides that the earlier Standards continue to apply to applications for accreditation of a course under section 43 of the NVR Act where the application was made before the ‘Commencement Day’ for the 2021 Standards, being 22 March 2021. In circumstances where AbilitySeer applied for accreditation of the Course in advance of this date, the earlier Standards from 2012 apply to the Tribunal’s review and not the 2021 Standards (although there is little substantive difference between those legislative instruments).
In VAC 3 of the Standards, ‘Training Package’ is defined to mean a ‘nationally endorsed, integrated set of competency standards, assessment requirements, Australian Qualifications Framework qualifications, and credit arrangements for a specific industry, industry sector or enterprise’.
Relevantly for this proceeding, the role of ‘VET accredited courses’, of which AbilitySeer is seeking its Course to become, is to supplement the VET courses developed through a ‘Training Package’ and, to this end, VAC 4 in the Standards states that:
Accredited courses address skill requirements for industry, enterprises and the community where these are not covered in nationally endorsed Training Packages. They also have the capacity to address changes in skill needs, and the needs of emerging and converging industries and industry sectors, in a responsive manner. A collaborative approach between national bodies concerned with the development and endorsement of national Training Packages and VET Regulators provides an effective and timely response to the changing needs of industry.
Accreditation means the formal recognition of a course by the National VET Regulator under the Act.
Pursuant to VAC 5, the Standards apply to the course design for VET accredited courses and, when the National VET Regulator accredits a course, it confirms that the course meets the Standards and the Australian Qualifications Framework, including whether the course:
• meets industry, enterprise or community needs;
• provides appropriate competency outcomes and a satisfactory basis for assessment;
• meets national quality assurance requirements; and
• is aligned to the appropriate level of the Australian Qualifications Framework where it leads to a VET qualification.
VAC 5 further provides that accreditation means the course is nationally recognised and that an RTO can issue to an individual student a nationally recognised VET qualification or VET statement of attainment following the course’s full or partial completion. Once a course is accredited, it is listed on the National Register of information on VET, which is maintained by the Commonwealth. VAC 5 also states that development of VET accredited courses should be consistent with the requirements of the Training Package Development Handbook.
Part 3 of the Standards, regarding course design, states that applications for course accreditation that are accepted by the National VET Regulator will be accredited if they are assessed as meeting course design standards and these ‘must be met for accreditation’.
VAC 6.1 in Part 3 of the Standards states that a ‘course must not duplicate, by title or coverage, the outcomes of an endorsed Training Package qualification’.
VAC 7 in Part 3 of the Standards sets out the course design standards, which relevantly include the following:
7.1 VET accredited courses are based on an established industry, enterprise, education legislative or community need.
7.2 VET accredited courses are based on nationally endorsed units of competency where these are available and where these are not available the course is based on:
(a) units of competency developed as part of the course; or
(b) modules.
These units of competency or modules are developed in consultation with, and validated by, industry, enterprise, community and/or professional groups and documented in accordance with nationally agreed specifications, consistent with the requirements of the Training Package Development Handbook.
Consultation with Industry Skills Council must take place to ensure that the course does not duplicate, by title or coverage, the outcomes of an endorsed Training Package qualification.
…
7.6 VET accredited courses specify rules for the structure of the course.
…
7.12 VET accredited courses specify specialist facilities and resources and the vocational competency requirements of trainers and assessors essential for the delivery of the course.
CONTENTIONS
AbilitySeer
AbilitySeer contended that there were two critical errors made by ASQA in relation to its decision not to accredit the Course. The first error, it submitted, related to the issue of duplication. AbilitySeer noted that ASQA’s evidence establishes that VAC 6.1, prohibiting duplication, is not enlivened and would not be until there is endorsement of the Training Package by the Skills’ Ministers. This fundamental mistake, it was contended, led ASQA to allow the assessment of the Course to become entangled with the Training Package and is not the correct approach to ASQA’s role in considering the application for accreditation of the Course. AbilitySeer submitted that the issue of duplication was improperly raised and considered by ASQA, there is no indication of when endorsement of the Training Package may occur and the Tribunal should not have regard to this consideration.
The second critical mistake made by ASQA, in AbilitySeer’s submission, was to think the Disability Support IRC must support or approve the Course in order for it to be accredited by ASQA; the Tribunal is the decision maker, not the IRC. On the wording of the VAC requirement, it does not provide the IRC with authority to determine accreditation. AbilitySeer contended that consultation should not be interpreted as simply ‘jumping through hoops’. It submitted that regard should be had to whether or not the content of the Course has value. AbilitySeer further contended that if, as ASQA submits, the IRC has undertaken comprehensive consultation and approved the Training Package, which has the same content as the Course submitted by AbilitySeer for approval, then it follows that ASQA cannot maintain an objection to the Course on the grounds of its relevance, necessity or value. To this end, AbilitySeer submitted, approval should therefore ‘flow over’ to the Course, because it would be illogical to have approved the support coordination modules in the Training Package but not approve AbilitySeer’s Course in circumstances where they contain the same content. AbilitySeer also submitted that any objection would need to be based, not on the issue of consultation, but on learning design and methodology. In this regard, the learning design expert, Mr Soulis, was called by AbilitySeer to give evidence in this proceeding. AbilitySeer contended that pedagogically there is no ground to consider the content of the Course is of lesser value to the material in any other course and no less deserving of approval for accreditation. As a result, it was argued, the Tribunal can be satisfied the Course has value because it contains the same content as the ASQA approved course in the separate Training Package. That is, if there is potential future duplication between the Course and the Training Package then there is equal value in both of them.
AbilitySeer submitted that the views of the IRC should not be given significant weight, because to do so would be to say that they are the only source of approval for accreditation of a course and stakeholders can include a range of entities and individuals. It submitted that the Course was validated and relevant peak bodies were consulted and invited to participate in the validation process, which occurred at a meeting on 9 September 2020 attended by people with lived experience of disability, advocates, industry employers and subject matter experts. AbilitySeer further contended that the question of whether the training can be provided in the Course’s two proposed enterprise units of study was answered in the affirmative by its learning design expert and there is no proper reason for refusing to accredit the Course.
AbilitySeer also submitted that the Course did not need to be supported by SkillsIQ and that ASQA’s claim that it was unsupportive was false or misleading and that, under VAC 7.2, SkillsIQ’s only role is to advise whether or not the training duplicates, by title or coverage, an existing or endorsed training package. In this regard, AbilitySeer submitted that its Course did not duplicate any existing or endorsed training package and the prospect of a future duplication with the Training Package was not a proper consideration for a decision-maker.
Accordingly, AbilitySeer requested that the decision under review be set aside and in substitution a decision made that its Course be accredited.
ASQA
ASQA contended that the NVR Act provides discretion to grant accreditation of a proposed course as a VET accredited course but, in considering accreditation, it requires the Standards to be taken into account.
While ASQA accepted that there is a need for an accredited course in NDIS support coordination, as evidenced by the work of the IRC in developing the Training Package, it submitted that the Course proposed by AbilitySeer does not meet VAC 7.1 of the Standards because there is insufficient evidence of an industry need for its particular course to be nationally accredited. Additionally, ASQA contended, the IRC, representing a range of peak bodies does not support the Course, because it considers the content of the Course cannot be adequately covered in the two proposed units due to the significance of the job role and the vulnerability of the client cohort. ASQA contended that the IRC does not support accreditation of the Course without significant additional content regarding disability support and has other concerns regarding the Course, including it being delivered in a short period of time and the minimal entry qualifications required having regard to the complexity of the role of a support coordinator.
ASQA further contended that the Course does not meet VAC 7.2 of the Standards because there is insufficient evidence that it was developed in consultation with, and validated by, industry, enterprise, community and/or professional groups, including the peak bodies in the disability sector represented by members of the IRC.
Additionally, ASQA submitted, the SSO, SkillsIQ, has been developing the Training Package in conjunction with the IRC, which has been approved by the AISC and is awaiting endorsement by the Skills’ Ministers. If endorsed, the Training Package will be listed on the national training register. ASQA contended that if endorsed, the Training Package will duplicate the outcomes of the Course, not, contrary to AbilitySeer’s submission, the entire content of the Course, but this will nevertheless enliven VAC 6.1 of the Standards prohibiting duplication. In this regard, while ASQA agreed that the proposed Course does not currently duplicate, by title or coverage, the outcomes of an existing or endorsed training package, it submitted that even if the Course met the various requirements to be accredited, the Course would only be able to be delivered by an RTO until the Training Package is released.
ASQA also referred to technical defects in the design of the Course that it was willing to resolve with AbilitySeer. However, it submitted that rectification of these issues would not overcome the broader issues with the Course in relation to VAC 7.1 and VAC 7.2 of the Standards.
Furthermore, in its written submissions, ASQA contended that AbilitySeer’s evidence of five industry consultation forms in relation to the Course did not demonstrate that the content of each enterprise unit has been validated by industry. It therefore submitted that, due to the lack of evidence provided by peak bodies regarding consultation and support for the Course, and that the Disability Support IRC does not support the accreditation of the Course, it cannot be accredited by ASQA. In this regard, ASQA referred to correspondence from SkillsIQ in October 2020 confirming that it did not support AbilitySeer’s Course. ASQA contended that support from SkillsIQ is required under VAC 7.1, regarding industry ‘need’, to demonstrate support for the Course from the IRC, and not under VAC 7.2, regarding endorsement.
For these reasons, ASQA contended that the decision under review should be affirmed, such that AbilitySeer’s Course not be accredited as a VET accredited course.
EVIDENCE
Mr Tim O’Hare
The Director of AbilitySeer, Mr Tim O’Hare, appeared by video on its behalf at the Tribunal hearing and gave evidence in this proceeding. AbilitySeer is a registered NDIS provider and ‘primarily assists participants with Support Coordination, which is a capacity building support, included by the NDIS in participant plans’.[30] He provided a witness statement dated 6 April 2021, a supplementary witness statement dated 19 April 2021 and a further supplementary witness statement dated 21 May 2021.[31] At the hearing, Mr O’Hare confirmed adherence to his witness statements and the Tribunal has considered each of them in reaching its decision.
[30] Exhibit 2, A3, page 27.
[31] Exhibit 2, A3-A5, pages 26-513.
By way of cross-examination, Mr O’Hare was referred to recent email correspondence from members of the IRC and asked whether he now agreed that it did not support AbilitySeer’s Course. He acknowledged that AbilitySeer had received the seven separate responses from members of IRC, but said that he had not had the opportunity to read them in detail, noting that they were provided to both AbilitySeer and the Tribunal the day before the hearing.[32] Mr O’Hare was specifically referred to an email from Mr Benjamin Keast of ARC Disability Services Inc dated 6 April 2022, which relevantly stated that ‘the IRC’s view has not changed and the IRC does not support this accredited course proposal’ from AbilitySeer.[33] Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal that he spoke with ‘a number of members’ of the IRC and was told that many members ‘were supportive of the course’. He said, to varying extents, his email correspondence with members of the IRC led him to believe they were supportive, but that Mr Keast had referred him back to the SkillsIQ secretariat who was neither supportive nor unsupportive. Mr O’Hare was asked whether the email from SkillsIQ on behalf of the IRC from 21 October 2020 set out its views, but he said the response he received from various members had been ‘more varied’ than this particular response, which stated that the IRC ‘cannot support’ AbilitySeer’s Course due to the significance of the role of a support coordinator.[34]
[32] Exhibit 8.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Exhibit 1, T62, page 724.
Mr O’Hare was referred to his email from October 2020 to Ms Robyn Chapman, the CEO of Assistive Technology Australia and a member of the IRC, attaching an industry consultation form regarding the Course. He agreed that this form was not returned to AbilitySeer.[35] Mr O’Hare also agreed that other members of the IRC did not return these consultation forms sent on behalf of AbilitySeer in relation to its Course. ASQA’s representative further referred Mr O’Hare to Ms Chapman’s recent email from 6 April 2022, which relevantly stated that ‘I have concerns regarding this proposed short course. The entry requirements appear to be inadequate.’[36] Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal he did not accept this view nor Ms Chapman’s stated view that ‘[i]t appears that the units of competency as described do not offer the level of content to ensure that a worker would be competent in carrying out the role of support coordinator’.[37]
[35] Exhibit 2, pages 121-127.
[36] Exhibit 8.
[37] Ibid.
Mr O’Hare was again referred to the email from Mr Keast from 6 April 2022, which relevantly stated that:[38]
I have also reviewed the most recent version of the proposed accredited course and continue to stand by the IRC’s decision. It concerns me that the course can be delivered in such a short period of time; with the potential that a student can have no relative experience working with people who have a disability; this was just a “recommendation” that a person needs six months experience is of great concern. The course does not actually talk to any actual capacity building function of the CoS role. This is a significant function of the role; particularly as it sits within the “Capacity” section of NDIS funding. There is also the ability to RPL [Recognition of Prior Learning] the course; which causes me additional concern.
[38] Ibid.

Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal that he did not agree with this statement, but could understand the perspective regarding the level of experience required to undertake the support coordinator role. He said it misses the fact that people can have lived experience to undertake the role of a support coordinator and no other formal qualification equips a person to perform the role. Mr O’Hare also did not directly agree that the IRC was well equipped to understand the disability support coordinator role and said he had seen very effective support coordinators who do not necessarily have prior experience in the disability sector.
Mr O’Hare was further asked whether he agreed that the IRC was saying in its recent email correspondence that the Course did not meet an appropriate benchmark. He told the Tribunal that the IRC had an initial position in 2020 and now an updated position, but agreed that none of the IRC members had returned AbilitySeer’s industry consultation forms regarding its Course. Mr O’Hare also ultimately agreed that he had received the IRC’s views regarding AbilitySeer’s Course in October 2020, which confirmed that the IRC could not support it in its current form.
Mr O’Hare was asked whether he agreed that he contacted NDS in October 2020, and its response on 22 October 2020, that they were considering who was the ‘best’ person to respond to AbilitySeer’s communication affects the value of the opinion expressed by this employee.[39] Mr O’Hare said that NDS was pleased to hear about the Course and thought it was a good idea because there was a real need for support coordinator accreditation. Mr O’Hare said Ms Karen Stace of NDS wanted to assist in having a qualification made available, but did not have the scope to do a ‘deep dive’ into the minutiae of the Course. In this regard, Mr O’Hare was referred by ASQA’s representative to the feedback on the Course from Mr Chris Kane of NDS dated 6 April 2022, being the NDS representative on the IRC. Mr O’Hare agreed that he had not referred in his evidence to his earlier discussions with Mr Kane regarding the Course, but not because NDS was unsupportive. To this end, Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal he did not agree with the concerns raised by NDS regarding AbilitySeer’s Course and said people can have different views and opinions about the required experience for the support coordinator role.
[39] Exhibit 1, T64, pages 745-747.
Mr O’Hare was referred to the email of another IRC member, Mr Paul Morgan of AODAC Services, dated 5 April 2022 and told the Tribunal he did not necessarily agree with the concerns regarding the Course conveyed in that communication.[40]
[40] Exhibit 8.
Mr O’Hare was referred to a further email from another IRC member, Ms Jan Primrose of the Australian Services Union, dated 6 April 2022, which stated that she had ‘not changed my view in support of the decision by the IRC when we originally considered this request’.[41] When asked whether he agreed with Ms Primrose’s concerns regarding the Course, Mr O’Hare said that he agreed with her view that the support coordinator role is a skilled position. He was then asked whether he agreed that Ms Primrose was in effect saying the Course does not meet the appropriate requirements; he disagreed.
[41] Exhibit 8.
The ASQA representative took Mr O’Hare to an email from a further IRC member, Ms Judy Williamson of the Cerebral Palsy Alliance, dated 6 April 2022, which stated that ‘issues still remain’ with the Course.[42] Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal that he did not consider that she expressed any concerns regarding the Course.[43]
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
Mr O’Hare also told the Tribunal that the endeavours he made to communicate with SkillsIQ regarding the Course and the IRC were documented. When it was put to Mr O’Hare that he made no changes to the Course following feedback from SkillsIQ, he told the Tribunal that he recalled that some members were supportive of it. In relation to a similar question regarding changes following feedback from the IRC, Mr O’Hare said the Course was continuously updated and refined and this dialogue was helpful and constructive and that some members had ‘very little awareness’ of the Training Package.
Mr O’Hare agreed that part of AbilitySeer’s consultation regarding its Course was a national email campaign to approximately 14,366 recipients in August 2020 and that it was a request for consultation rather than constituting actual consultation.[44] He also agreed the results of this email campaign were that 13 recipients ‘clicked’ on the email, but said information was still viewable to those who did not click on the links in the email. Mr O’Hare did not agree with the proposition that this email campaign was not meaningful consultation regarding the Course.
[44] Exhibit 1, T54, pages 536-544.
Mr O’Hare was asked by ASQA’s representative about AbilitySeer’s social media campaign in relation to the Course and whether this was again a call for consultation, but not actual consultation.[45] Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal that it notified community stakeholders and people in the industry regarding the Course’s details and complied with the ‘Users’ guide to the Standards for VET Accredited Courses’, which details what consultation is required.[46]
[45] Exhibit 1, T54, pages 545-548.
[46] Exhibit 2, pages 40-85.
Mr O’Hare confirmed to the Tribunal that AbilitySeer was seeking for the Course to be accredited in order to be delivered nationally and, when asked about national consultation, referred to the email campaign and feedback forms received following AbilitySeer’s delivery of in-person training of the unaccredited course.[47] He did not agree that only a small amount of these feedback forms indicated whether the participants supported the Course becoming accredited. As a result, Mr O’Hare was taken to a feedback form which did not contain a question regarding support for accreditation of the Course and agreed that particular series of forms did not do so, but referred to another batch, although he did not agree these were a smaller number of feedback forms.
[47] Exhibit 1, T64, pages 748-773.
Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal that AbilitySeer had trained in excess of 700 people in the proposed course, but said he had not counted the feedback forms to be able to agree or otherwise with the proposition that the number of the forms was very small relative to the quantum of claimed participants. In this regard, Mr O’Hare was taken to his supplementary witness statement annexing feedback forms containing the question regarding support for accreditation of the Course. He told the Tribunal that he would need to review the documents to be able to confirm whether this amounted to seven such forms, although noted that each of them supported accreditation. ASQA’s representative put to Mr O’Hare that there was no evidence of how the Course had changed through the consultation process. He said there was a series of drafts and the most recent Course document was version seven dated March 2021.[48]
[48] Exhibit 7.
Mr O’Hare was referred to a letter from Ms Stace of NDS to AbilitySeer dated 24 July 2021 and was asked whether he agreed that it did not expressly provide support for accreditation of the Course.[49] The letter relevantly stated that:
[49] Exhibit 2, A8, pages 519-520.
Feedback from our members indicates that the area of support coordination is vital to supporting some people with disability who are NDIS participants effectively utilise their NDIS plan budgets. Many of our members provide support coordination services to NDIS participants and National Disability Services (NDS) has worked with various partners to deliver training around support coordination. We currently offer support coordination communities of practice in several jurisdictions.
…
From the prospectus that you have provided and as we understand it, the units put forward for accreditation have an emphasis on (amongst other things):
·Engaging a support service to meet participants needs including developing participant’s capacity to self-direct their supports and ensuring that NDIS participants access support that they reasonably require.
·Supporting NDIS participants with review processes. This will include supporting participants understand their support needs and communicate these in scheduled and unscheduled plan reviews. This aspect will also cover the skills required to connect participants with advocacy bodies including those that can support the participant undertake a review of reasonable and necessary decisions.
·Person centred approaches.
·Practical and real world-based scenarios and situations.
Insofar as the units proposed achieve these objectives, feedback from our members would indicate that accredited units of training covering these areas would be valued by the sector.
We also note that a review of the Certificate III in Individual Support and Certificate IV in Ageing Support and Certificate IV in Disability Qualifications and associated Units of Competency is underway by Skills IQ. Our submission to the first review of these certificates was that an understanding of plan funding, resource management, common systems and processes, elements of crisis management/responses, advocacy, consent, advanced communications skills and also a focus on soft skills in context of their role.
A second draft of the updated Training Package Products is now available for public validation and feedback. We note that this draft includes support coordination skills sets. From our perspective these skill sets, should they be introduced as proposed are a positive step and would go some way to assist in addressing the support coordination skills gap identified by the sector.
Mr O’Hare appeared to accept in his evidence to the Tribunal that this NDS letter endorsed support coordination skill sets in the Training Package ‘should they be introduced’.
He agreed that AbilitySeer relied on communications he had with representatives of the NDIS as demonstrating consultation regarding the Course.[50] As a result, Mr O’Hare was referred to an email from the NDIS dated 27 November 2020, which relevantly stated that ‘[d]ue to the current review of the SC [Support Coordinator] model, we are not in the position to sign the ASQA consultation form’.[51] Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal that he did not necessarily interpret this as either being opposed to, or supportive of, the Course. He agreed this correspondence occurred after SkillsIQ provided its views regarding the Course in October 2020 and, in answer to a question about whether he was seeking to circumvent the process, said he was following the Users’ Guide regarding ongoing consultation.
[50] Exhibit 2, page 115.
[51] Ibid.
Mr O’Hare was referred to the industry consultation forms and attendees at the validation meeting held by AbilitySeer for the Course in September 2020. One participant, Mr James Aspland, was then working for Caring Approach ACT and was said to be providing a personal view on the Course. Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal that Mr Aspland is a colleague whom he has known for a period of time. Another participant worked for AbilitySeer at the time of the validation meeting. A further participant, Mr O’Hehir from Coordinated Care Services, based in Queanbeyan and southern NSW, was said to be providing a view on behalf of his organisation. Another participant was Ms Madelaine Benson from Advocacy for Inclusion, an ACT-based organisation. The organisation Seimosei, based in NSW and delivering disability support services into the ACT, was represented by two individuals.
Mr O’Hare was taken to the reference to the Course validation meeting in AbilitySeer’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 14 July 2021, in which it was stated that the ‘Course validation meeting occurred 9/9/20, and was attended by people with lived experience of disability, advocates, industry employers, and subject matter experts’.[52] He confirmed to the Tribunal that there was one person in attendance with lived experience of disability, one advocate, two industry employers (one being AbilitySeer) and the subject matter experts were himself, the person with lived experience, Mr Aspland and other attendees from community organisations. ASQA’s representative then took Mr O’Hare to the minutes of the meeting, which listed the attendees as being Mr O’Hare, another employee of AbilitySeer, Mr Aspland of Caring Approach and now employed by AbilitySeer, two attendees from Seimosei, one attendee from Advocacy for Inclusion and an NDIS participant.[53] Mr O’Hare told the Tribunal the minutes were an accurate record of the meeting and are sufficient to demonstrate what occurred at the session. Mr O’Hare was taken to the minutes’ reference to unit two of the Course and told the Tribunal that he was unsure whether he agreed there was scant information about what was discussed in relation to that unit, who raised questions or what comments were made, however he agreed that if there were more detail this would clarify what occurred.
[52] Exhibit 2, A1, page 2.
[53] Exhibit 2, A4, page 150.
Mr O’Hare was further referred to the reference in AbilitySeer’s written submissions that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission had been ‘consulted / invited to participate’ in the Course validation meeting. He agreed that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission did not respond to AbilitySeer’s invitation to attend and said he could not force them to do so or participate in the process. Mr O’Hare did not agree that the NDIS was unsupportive of the Course and said it did not want to express a view on any course. He said the NDIS was asked by AbilitySeer to participate but, ‘for whatever reason’, it did not consider it appropriate to support or not support any course.
Mr O’Hare agreed that some small technical changes could be made if necessary for the Course to be compliant, in addition to those already made by AbilitySeer. He told the Tribunal that AbilitySeer was willing to resolve any outstanding technical issues and believed he had done so since 2019. However, Mr O’Hare said that other issues raised with the Course document would either require further consideration before AbilitySeer could agree to a change or were not considered necessary to change.
Mr Spiros Soulis
Mr Soulis, a learning design expert, was called by AbilitySeer to give evidence in this proceeding. He provided two reports in relation to the Course that were before the Tribunal and taken into evidence at the hearing.[54] These reports have been considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision.
[54] Exhibit 2, A9, pages 522-533; and Exhibit 3.
Mr Soulis’ summary of the Course, contained in his undated report filed with the Tribunal on 30 September 2021, and titled ‘Expert Learning Design Opinion - Course in NDIS Support Coordination’, stated that:[55]
There are obvious gaps in the design of the learning however with a more concentrated effort, these could be addressed and subsequently produce a more robust and compliant training.
[55] Exhibit 3, page 6.
A further undated document in relation to the Course produced by Mr Soulis, titled ‘Final Report – Expert Learning Design Opinion’ and filed with the Tribunal on 12 March 2021, relevantly stated that:[56]
The course as well as the units of competency now demonstrates a more valid and authentic design that has occurred by applying constructive alignment to the redesign of both the performance criteria and the assessment strategy. This alignment makes the training more valid and compliant. The redesign also incorporates Bloom’s Taxonomy to further validate what is expected of the learners. The assessment strategy now clearly states its approach to providing sufficient authentic assessment. Finally the foundation skills and assessment requirements have been re-written to further reflect who the learners are and what is expected of them.
[56] Exhibit 2, A9, pages 532-533. References omitted.
In his evidence at the Tribunal hearing, Mr Soulis provided his background in learning design as a teacher and unit and program coordinator designing units of competency from Certificate IV up to postgraduate level. He is currently a unit coordinator at Queensland University of Technology and has a Masters in Learning Sciences and Technology. Mr Soulis recalled being requested in March 2021 by AbilitySeer to provide his expert opinion regarding its Course. He told the Tribunal his opinion related to the two proposed units of competency for the Course and how to achieve alignment between the competencies, outcomes and assessment having regard to learning design principles. Mr Soulis told the Tribunal there was considerable work done to the original Course document to bring about better alignment. He also agreed that the performance criteria for the Course was rewritten to make it ‘more robust’ with a ‘more authentic’ assessment.
Mr Soulis agreed with the proposition that the training in the two units of competency sufficiently matched the Course’s learning outcomes. In this regard, Mr Soulis told the Tribunal that the Course demonstrated the application of design principles suitable to the learning outcomes and objectives of the Course to a ‘very high standard’ and the number of ‘re-writes’ demonstrated the application of design principles to the Course, particularly in relation to learning outcomes and assessment.
By way of cross-examination, Mr Soulis agreed that he did not have experience with the NDIS. He also agreed that he did not have specialised knowledge of the role of an NDIS Support Coordinator, but told the Tribunal that he has in the last three years worked with another organisation to develop a number of online training formats for workers delivering these types of services and has therefore become aware of the particular requirements of that work. He further said that the role of a learning designer was to work across a range of disciplines regardless of specialisation.
ASQA’s representative took Mr Soulis to his first report regarding AbilitySeer’s Course, which he said was finalised in March or April 2021.[57] He agreed the associated briefing letter asked him to answer particular questions in his report. Mr Soulis further agreed that he was aware of ASQA’s rejection of the Course. He also agreed that his report did not address ASQA’s reasons for not accrediting the Course; he told the Tribunal he was addressing questions put to him by AbilitySeer. He also told the Tribunal that he did not have a copy of ASQA’s reasons for not accrediting the Course and would have listed that document if it was contained in his briefing material from AbilitySeer.
[57] Exhibit 3; and Exhibit 2, A9, pages 522-524.
Mr Soulis said he considered and was aware of the Standards in preparing his report and, as an experienced learning designer he could ascertain gaps or lack of authenticity without looking at the Standards. He agreed that he did not express a view on whether the Course meets the Standards for a VET accredited course and said this was because his remit was to address particular questions and his design interventions were focused on those issues.
Mr Soulis further said that he was unaware the IRC had expressed a view that, due to the significance of the job role, the qualification could not be undertaken in the Course’s proposed two units of competency. He had understood this view came from ASQA, due to his briefing by AbilitySeer. Mr Soulis was not familiar with the Disability Support IRC. However, having been provided an overview of the IRC by ASQA’s representative, Mr Soulis did ‘not necessarily’ agree that the IRC is a body that could provide meaningful feedback on the Course, because they are ‘subject matter experts’ and not experts in ‘designers of learning’. However, he did agree that the IRC would have meaningful feedback on the appropriateness of the Course for the particular sector, although he again told the Tribunal they would not be learning design experts in relation to accredited courses. In this regard, Mr Soulis confirmed that he did not have regard in his report to the IRC feedback regarding the Course.

To this end, Mr Soulis was referred to the IRC email from 7 December 2020, which informed AbilitySeer that it was not supportive of the Course and which relevantly stated that:[58]
the IRC does not believe that this content can be covered adequately in two units of competency as proposed in your course, due to the significance of the job role, along with the vulnerability of the client cohort. Therefore the Disability Support IRC does not support the proposed course being accredited without significant additional content regarding disability support which would inform NDIS supports.
[58] Exhibit 1, T68, page 801.
Mr Soulis told the Tribunal that he was aware of concern regarding whether two units of competency met the requirements, but noted that his remit was to consider the then current units and how they stood as units in relation to the Course’s learning outcomes and objectives and whether they included design principles. Mr Soulis said ‘best practice’ would see subject matter experts come together with learning design experts to identify whether two or three units of competency were adequate or whether they had to be rewritten to ensure robustness and then provide the appropriate level of accreditation and service; these questions he could not answer as a learning designer, but he could look at a particular unit and its design elements.
In this regard, Mr Soulis was taken to the section of his preliminary report, which stated that: ‘[i]t is difficult for me to ascertain if in fact only two enterprise units are limiting for such training’.[59] He told the Tribunal that he looked at better synergies for the two units and ‘it’s very difficult’ to determine whether two units or more are required. Mr Soulis said this was because he is not a subject matter expert in disability support coordination. He accepted that the IRC would be a useful subject matter expert and also agreed that consultation and engagement with industry is important in course design and expected that this would occur.
[59] Exhibit 3, page 3.
Mr Soulis was referred to his final report prepared for AbilitySeer and its briefing letter, which stated that the following learning design question arose:[60]
“Can the “important training (understood in terms of the learning outcomes and objectives of the proposed course for accreditation) be achieved through AbilitySeer’s enterprise unit design?”
[60] Exhibit 2, A9, pages 522-533.
He told the Tribunal that he did not address this ‘very open question’ in his report, but addressed the more specific subsequent questions, such as, is the ‘design of the two enterprise units sufficiently matched to the course learning outcomes and objectives?’
Mr Soulis further told the Tribunal that, in preparing his final report, he was ‘probably not’ provided with ASQA’s reasons for rejecting accreditation of the Course, although he would have had regard to the Standards, but again agreed that he did not provide an opinion on whether the Course met those Standards.
ASQA’s representative took Mr Soulis to a selection of the recent emails from IRC members regarding their perceived deficiencies with the Course and accepted that the views of the IRC Chair are relevant and ‘obviously’ need to be taken into consideration if they are an industry expert and understand its requirements. Mr Soulis was asked whether this feedback changed his view on the Course and he told the Tribunal that his brief was to look at the ‘constructive alignment’ of the two units of competency for the Course and not to ascertain their adequacy. In addition, Mr Soulis was taken to another email from the NDS representative on the IRC and agreed that its views regarding the sufficiency of the Course are relevant and important to consider in ‘an ideal scenario’.
Mr James Aspland
Mr Aspland provided a witness statement in this proceeding dated 19 April 2021, which has been considered by the Tribunal in preparing these written reasons.[61] He gave evidence at the hearing by video and told the Tribunal that he has worked in the community sector for the last 24 years, including from a support worker, to a VET trainer and company manager. He has previously trained people for a Certificate III in Community Services qualification. In the last eight years as a company manager, Mr Aspland has been involved with NDIS participants and is currently employed as a support coordinator with AbilitySeer.
[61] Exhibit 2, A6, pages 514-516.
Mr Aspland agreed that he attended a course validation session run by AbilitySeer in September 2020. At that time, he was employed as a Business Development Manager with Caring Approach. Mr Aspland told the Tribunal that he had attended other such sessions and participants would ‘go over the course content’ and ensure it aligned with what the learner was required to learn. He recalled discussing the Course, its content and materials at the validation meeting. Mr Aspland agreed that the meeting participants were extremely experienced in the disability sector. He also agreed that there is a need for a course in NDIS support coordination. Mr Aspland further agreed that he was aware of the Training Package and the Course. He considered the Course to be ‘apt’ and was aware of Mr Soulis’ engagement as a learning design expert.
By way of cross-examination, Mr Aspland confirmed that AbilitySeer is his current employer. He told the Tribunal that he was giving evidence in his personal capacity and not on behalf of AbilitySeer. Mr Aspland was referred to his letter of 18 December 2019, in which he said that he was ‘broadly supportive in principle of the idea that Support Coordinators should be trained and skilled to an acceptable standard’.[62] He told the Tribunal this was his personal view, but also that it would support the work of his employer at that time, although he confirmed that this organisation did not ask him to provide the letter in support of the Course. Mr Aspland agreed that he was not expressing a view in this letter regarding the substance of the Course, but his position was that he was broadly supportive that disability support coordinators should be trained and skilled to an acceptable standard.
[62] Exhibit 1, T14, page 103.
Mr Aspland also told the Tribunal that he attended the Course validation meeting in his personal capacity and not on behalf of his then employer. He was referred to the minutes of the meeting, but could not recall everything said at that meeting, although considered the minutes reflected the discussions. Furthermore, Mr Aspland agreed there could have been more detailed discussion in the minutes regarding unit two of the Course. Mr Aspland agreed that seven people attended the meeting and two were representing AbilitySeer, including Mr O’Hare. In this regard, there were five people at the meeting not from AbilitySeer. One of these was a person with lived experience of disability, and the remaining four people represented other organisations all based in and around the ACT. He did not agree that the attendees were not geographically representative because he said the work of a support coordinator was similar or the same across Australia. However, Mr Aspland did agree that there were no national or peak disability organisations or members of the IRC represented at the meeting. He further agreed that the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission was not in attendance.
Mr Aspland accepted that the IRC represents the views of important national organisations in the disability sector. He was referred to the IRC email of December 2021, which told AbilitySeer that it was not supportive of the Course. Mr Aspland agreed that he was unaware of this correspondence at the time he made his witness statement in this proceeding. However, he would still endorse the Course because there is no other VET accredited course in support coordination and he saw ‘no issue’ with its content.
Mr Aspland was referred to the April 2022 emails from members of the IRC conveying their concerns regarding the Course. He agreed industry experience was important, but said most support coordinators have no experience in the sector. He was ‘not too concerned’ with this situation, although acknowledged it may cause distress to the NDIS participant. When asked whether the IRC’s concerns would change his opinion on the appropriateness of the Course, Mr Aspland said he was unaware of the ‘full function’ of the IRC and could not comment. He was referred to an email from an IRC member regarding the sufficiency of the entry requirement to the Course and agreed that support coordinators work with a vulnerable cohort of people and that if a person was not appropriately qualified it could be detrimental. However, this feedback from an IRC member did not cause Mr Aspland to change his opinion regarding the Course, because it is the only course he has seen for support coordination and he has nothing with which to compare it. Mr Aspland was referred to a further email from an IRC member detailing concerns with the Course, but told the Tribunal that it did not cause him concerns about its appropriateness.
When asked whether six months experience in the support coordination role was inadequate, Mr Aspland told the Tribunal that it ‘depends on the person’. He agreed that his support for the Course is based on there being no existing VET accredited course in disability support coordination and confirmed that he was employed by AbilitySeer ‘just over a year ago’ and was employed by it at the time of making his witness statement in this proceeding; he agreed this document did not disclose the status of his employment. Mr Aspland was asked whether he agreed that, if the Course was accredited, he would benefit professionally or financially. He told the Tribunal that as an employee of AbilitySeer he would ‘have to do a lot more work’, but would benefit from a professional development perspective and expand his industry contacts.
Ms Melinda Brown
Ms Brown provided a witness statement in this proceeding dated 3 June 2021 and a supplementary witness statement dated 6 April 2022, both of which the Tribunal has considered in reaching its decision.[63] Ms Brown gave evidence by video to the Tribunal at the hearing of AbilitySeer’s application and confirmed that she is the General Manager of SkillsIQ and also confirmed her adherence to the aforementioned witness statements.
[63] Exhibit 4, R2, pages 57; Exhibit 6.
Ms Brown told the Tribunal that SkillsIQ is a skills service organisation (or SSO) funded by the Commonwealth to support a range of industry reference committees comprising industry experts appointed by the AISC. One IRC is the Disability Support IRC and SkillsIQ provides secretariat support to assist in the development of Training Package materials and other activities as directed by the AISC and the Commonwealth. In the Disability Support IRC, members include employers in disability services, unions, NDS, the NDIA and peak disability bodies to ensure coverage across the sector.
Ms Brown confirmed in her written statement that the Training Package was approved by the AISC at its October 2021 meeting subject to advice being provided regarding its implementation in jurisdictions. The Training Package is awaiting endorsement by a simple majority of the Skills’ Ministers. She confirmed that ASQA has no role in the accreditation or endorsement process for the Training Package; its role begins after publication of the endorsed Training Package and is focused on ensuring compliant delivery by RTOs.
Ms Brown told the Tribunal that the IRC’s concerns regarding AbilitySeer’s proposed Course related to the insufficiency of coverage regarding the tasks, skills and knowledge required in the job of a disability support coordinator and that two units of competency were insufficient given the complexity of the job role and the vulnerability of the cohort. The IRC also had concerns that the entry requirements were ‘recommended’ only and that the role of the disability support coordinator had been identified for inclusion in the development of the Training Package awaiting endorsement.
ASQA’s representative asked Ms Brown whether, if AbilitySeer’s Course was accredited, it would stop endorsement of the separate Training Package. She told the Tribunal it was ‘quite the reverse’ and the purpose of a VET accredited course was to meet a particular ‘niche skills need’ that cannot be met by a national Training Package. This is because the VET accredited course was not substantial enough or was focused on a specific region or it met an interim need before the development of a national Training Package with particular units of competency. That is, Ms Brown told the Tribunal, VET accredited courses have no bearing on national Training Package products.
By way of cross-examination, Ms Brown told the Tribunal that she was unaware of whether any members of the IRC are disability support coordinators. Ms Brown further stated that she was unsure what the outstanding issues were in relation to the Training Package, but that they concern implementation issues in each jurisdiction across Australia. She confirmed her knowledge of AbilitySeer’s development of the Course, but did not consider this was in competition with the Training Package being worked on by SkillsIQ.
Following cross-examination, Ms Brown confirmed to the Tribunal her understanding, based on the AISC Communique, that the Skills’ Ministers would endorse the Training Package following receipt of the implementation advice from the Senior Skills Officials Network and that this advice had not yet been provided. Ms Brown further told the Tribunal she understood that the Training Package had been circulated to the Skills’ Ministers in each jurisdiction and the Commonwealth is awaiting advice from these jurisdictions regarding endorsement. In this regard, Ms Brown also confirmed that one or more of the Skills’ Ministers may have already endorsed the Training Package.
Ms Madelain McCann
Ms McCann provided a witness statement in this proceeding dated 2 June 2021 and a supplementary witness statement dated 1 April 2022, both of which the Tribunal has considered in reaching its decision.[64] Ms McCann provided evidence at the hearing by video and confirmed both that she is a Senior Regulatory Design Officer with ASQA and adherence with her abovementioned statements.
[64] Exhibit 4, R1, pages 1-4; Exhibit 5.
Ms McCann told the Tribunal that her role with ASQA is to review VET course concepts and renewal applications. This entails determining a need for a course, support for it and then evaluation for accreditation against the Standards. Ms McCann has been a course accreditation assessor since June 2018 and she has evaluated ‘numerous applications’ for both initial and renewal accreditation. She has also developed the Users’ Guide to completing ASQA’s course document template.
Ms McCann told the Tribunal that ASQA’s identified issues with AbilitySeer’s proposed Course relate to industry support and validation of the Course content and its development in line with VET accredited courses, particularly with regard to the design of the enterprise units in accordance with the Standards and other technical matters to ensure consistency of training assessment when applied by RTOs delivering the Course.
More specifically in relation to the need for the Course, Ms McCann told the Tribunal it had been identified that there was a need for such a course by industry, which is evidenced by the Training Package. However, ASQA’s concern was the evidence of validation of the unit content, especially non-compliance regarding the development of units of competency, such as minutes, tracked changes from industry and the requirement on applicants for course accreditation to engage with SSOs and IRCs, being peak bodies, regarding their opinion and feedback on the content and suitability of the proposed training. Ms McCann said that it was determined that the level of training and assessment required for a graduate to perform the role and have the required skills and knowledge was not going to be achieved by AbilitySeer’s Course.
Ms McCann further told the Tribunal that when ASQA receives input from industry as subject matter experts, their evaluation of the level of knowledge and skills required of a graduate to perform the role demonstrated that it was not achievable with the current content of the Course and within its duration and therefore could not be registered as a VET accredited course on the National Register; the Course was described by Ms McCann as being more in the form of workplace training.
Ms McCann was referred to the recent emails from members of the IRC regarding the Course and told the Tribunal that this re-iterated the position that SkillsIQ, as the SSO, provided ASQA in late 2020 during reconsideration of AbilitySeer’s application for accreditation.[65] That is, that the requisite skills and knowledge for a NDIS support coordinator would not be achieved by a graduate undertaking the Course. Ms McCann referred specifically to the IRC’s concerns regarding entry requirements for the Course, the level of training and assessment required for a graduate and said that it ‘strengthens’ the advice regarding the content in the proposed Course. She confirmed that it did not change her opinion regarding the Course.
[65] Exhibit 8.
Ms McCann also provided the Tribunal with an overview of the technical issues of non-compliance ASQA has assessed in AbilitySeer’s proposed Course. She said that ASQA had offered a ‘number of times’ to work with AbilitySeer on these technical defects and is willing to do so to address these issues.
By way of cross-examination, Ms McCann told the Tribunal she did not consider herself an expert in the area of learning design because she does not develop assessment tools. She said that consultation and feedback is received from beyond the group of IRCs and SSOs in considering support for a proposed course and its accreditation, but this is ‘in addition to’ industry and peak bodies or individuals. Ms McCann told the Tribunal that ASQA considers others’ opinions ‘in addition to’ peak bodies and IRCs, however the latter’s opinion as the peak body containing members with knowledge and skills to develop training packages is considered highly. She said that it was not her role to investigate the backgrounds and experience of IRC members and it would not change her opinion about the group if there was no one on that body with experience as a disability support coordinator, because they have ‘done their consultation’ and are the peak body for developing training packages for the disability sector.
CONSIDERATION
AbilitySeer’s application for its Course in NDIS Support Coordination to be accredited by the National VET Regulator was initially rejected because ASQA considered the Course was non-compliant with a number of the Standards required for VET accredited courses. This decision was affirmed by the Chief Commissioner of ASQA, as the National VET Regulator, and AbilitySeer subsequently applied to the Tribunal for merits review of this decision.
As set out above in these reasons, subsection 44(1) of the NVR Act provides that the National VET Regulator (and here, the Tribunal) may grant an application for the accreditation of a course and in making this decision, it must consider, among other things, whether the course meets the Standards. In this regard, while the National VET Regulator has discretion to accredit a course, it must consider the Standards in its decision-making process.
Based on all the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision of the Chief Commissioner of ASQA, as the National VET Regulator, should be affirmed.
Established industry, enterprise, education, legislative or community need
As previously set out in these reasons, VAC 7.1 of the Standards requires VET accredited courses to be ‘based on an established industry, enterprise, education, legislative or community need’. While the Tribunal is satisfied that there is such a need for a VET accredited course in disability, or NDIS, support coordination, it is not satisfied that AbilitySeer’s Course meets VAC 7.1 of the Standards because there was insufficient independent evidence of an established industry need for its particular Course to be accredited as a VET accredited course.

The Australian Industry and Skills Committee (or AISC) is responsible for the development of national training package products in the VET sector. Training packages relevantly consist of units of competency, assessment requirements and qualification for individuals to perform particular work in a sector or industry. Industry Reference Committees (or IRCs) are the formal channel for considering industry skills requirements in the development and review of training packages and advise the AISC about the skills needs of their industry sector.[66] Each IRC is made up of people with links to industry to ensure national training packages meet the needs and concerns of employers, employees, training providers, and people seeking training qualifications. IRCs are supported by a skills service organisation (or SSO) to help them in their work which, in relation to the Disability Support IRC, is SkillsIQ.
[66] accessed 30 June 2022.
The AISC relevantly states that the Disability Support IRC:[67]
has been established to respond to the increasing demand for disability support workers, driven in particular by the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The IRC’s work includes addressing the current and future competencies and skill requirements for new workers entering the sector and existing staff needing to upskill in the vocational education and training (VET) and sector.
The Disability Support IRC is responsible for:
·reviewing and updating national training package qualifications, skill sets and units of competency needed by the disability support sector
·working with other IRCs which have an interest in qualifications relevant to the disability support sector to ensure industry needs are considered and met.
[67] accessed 30 June 2022.
There was substantial evidence before the Tribunal, which it accepts, that the Disability Support IRC and SkillsIQ do not support accreditation of AbilitySeer’s Course.
To this end, the overwhelming evidence before the Tribunal demonstrated that accreditation of the Course is not supported by the IRC, because of, among other things, the content of the Course, the inadequacy of two units of competency for the Course and the significance of the job role of a disability or NDIS support coordinator, including having regard to the vulnerability of some of the client cohort. The consistent evidence of the IRC members was its serious concern with the potential accreditation of the Course. The Tribunal gives significant weight to the views of the IRC and its constituent members, which include representatives from peak disability organisations and the disability sector more broadly, including the NDS, employer groups and unions. The Tribunal accepts that the IRC is best placed to provide a considered opinion on the Course and its suitability as a VET accredited course having regard to the skills required in the disability support sector. On the evidence before the Tribunal, AbilitySeer’s Course did not have the support of the IRC, or any of its individual members, and there were no peak or national entities that supported its accreditation. To this end, the Tribunal finds that the lack of evidence of industry need for the Course weighs significantly against its accreditation.
In this regard, the Tribunal finds that the IRC’s position, based on a range of factors, that there is not a need for the Course, outweighs those factors in favour of its accreditation. The evidence in support of the need for the Course, detailed above in these reasons, including training feedback forms and the minutes of a validation meeting attended by five people not then employed by AbilitySeer, was limited and unpersuasive as to the industry need for the Course to be accredited, especially given the significance of the role of an NDIS support coordinator and the vulnerability of some of the prospective clients. The Tribunal finds that the evidence in support of the need for the Course does not outweigh the weight afforded by the Tribunal to the evidently careful consideration given by the IRC to the Course over many years, including its deficiencies and the essential requirements of an accredited course in disability support coordination that were found to be lacking in the Course.
For completeness, the Tribunal finds that the evidence of the learning design expert, Mr Soulis, did not overcome the weight attributable to the concerns of the IRC regarding the Course. As Mr Soulis acknowledged in his evidence to the Tribunal, he provided AbilitySeer with his expert opinion on the learning design of the Course, including the alignment between its two units of competency, and not on whether its content was sufficient and appropriate to meet the requirements of the role of a disability or NDIS support coordinator. Based on all the evidence, the members of the IRC, representing broad and diverse experience in the disability support sector, are best placed to advise on industry need for an accredited course. Additionally, at its highest, the evidence of Mr Aspland, a current employee of AbilitySeer, albeit with lengthy experience in the community sector, could not overcome the substantial concerns raised by the members of the IRC in relation to the Course and detailed in these reasons. In this regard, Mr Aspland did not concede that his view regarding the Course would at all change in light of the IRC’s adverse views of the Course. However, this was largely based on there presently being no VET accredited course in support coordination, rather than having a detailed view of the Course beyond it being described as ‘apt’.
In considering VAC 7.1, the Tribunal has also had regard to the objects of the NVR Act, set out at section 2A, including to provide for national consistency in the regulation of VET; to regulate VET using a standards-based quality framework; to promote and enhance Australia’s reputation for VET nationally and internationally; to promote a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly education and skilled population; and to protect students undertaking Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET. Having regard to the available evidence, especially the substantial lack of support from peak or national organisations in the disability sector and the views of the IRC, the Tribunal is not satisfied that accreditation of the Course would meet the objects of the NVR Act in relation to the VET sector in Australia.
On all the available evidence, most notably the significant concerns raised by industry about the Course, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it should be accredited and therefore does not exercise its discretion to do so under subsection 44(1) of the NVR Act.
Nationally endorsed units of competency
While the Tribunal’s above finding means that AbilitySeer’s application is unsuccessful, for completeness, the Tribunal considers the next relevant issue in this proceeding, which it also finds does not support exercise of the discretion to accredit the Course.
As previously set out in these reasons, VAC 7.2 of the Standards provides that VET accredited courses are ‘based on nationally endorsed units of competency’ and ‘developed in consultation with, and validated by, industry, enterprise, community and/or professional groups’. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, set out above in this decision, it is not satisfied that the Course meets VAC 7.2 because of the insufficient evidence that the Course was developed in consultation with, and validated by industry, enterprise, community, and/or professional groups, including members of the Disability Support IRC. To this end, the Tribunal finds that AbilitySeer has not demonstrated sufficient evidence of consultation and validation of the Course for accreditation as a ‘VET accredited course’.
The Tribunal has set out the evidence of the consultation and validation efforts of AbilitySeer, including the validation meeting attended by five people not then employed by it, the invitations issued to peak bodies or national disability organisations to consult with AbilitySeer on the Course and its social media and bulk email campaigns. While the Tribunal does not detract from these genuine efforts by AbilitySeer to engage with the sector on the development of the Course, this consultation is, with respect, insufficient to establish national endorsement of the proposed units of competency given the proposed reach of the Course and its significance in the disability support sector. There was minimal evidence of any in-depth and meaningful consultation with the relevant national entities in the sector that would demonstrate national endorsement of the units of competency, noting again the significant concerns of the IRC, and its members representing a broad spectrum of the sector, regarding the adequacy of there being only two proposed units in the Course given the importance of the job role and the prospective client cohort in the NDIS. The Tribunal has also had regard to the objects of the NVR Act in considering this aspect of the Standards and exercise of the discretion to accredit the Course and finds that it does not support such accreditation.
Accordingly, based on the evidence and findings in relation to VAC 7.2, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Course should be accredited and therefore does not exercise its discretion to do so under subsection 44(1) of the NVR Act.
Duplication
The issue of whether or not the Course duplicated the outcomes of an endorsed training package was a consistent theme throughout this proceeding and was the subject of the aforementioned dismissal application brought by ASQA. Under VAC 6.1 and VAC 7.2 of the Standards, a course must not duplicate, by title or coverage, the outcome of an endorsed training package. To this end, duplication is a ground for cancellation of a course on the initiative of the National VET Regulator under the NVR Act.
As detailed in these reasons, there is no support for the Course from the Disability Support IRC, including because SkillsIQ has developed the Training Package which has been approved for national release, but not yet endorsed by the Skills’ Ministers, and which duplicates the outcomes of the Course. AbilitySeer conceded in its representative’s witness statement before the Tribunal that ‘[i]f the other course [the Training Package] were to be approved by the Respondent, my course would not be able to be delivered, as it would then duplicate an existing course’.[68]
[68] Exhibit 32, A3, page 37.
Under the AISC’s Training Package Development and Endorsement Process Policy, endorsement of a Training Package is reached by a simple majority of the Skills’ Ministers agreeing to its endorsement. However, endorsement of the Training Package has not yet occurred and there is presently no duplication of an endorsed training package. In this regard, ASQA conceded that duplication is not presently enlivened in relation to the Training Package. For these reasons, and given the above findings, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to make a finding in relation to this issue.
Technical defects
Additionally, having regard to the Tribunal’s above findings in relation to VAC 7.1 and VAC 7.2, which renders AbilitySeer’s application unsuccessful, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the Course is non-compliant with technical aspects of VAC 7.6 of the Standards, being that courses must specify rules for the structure of the course, and VAC 7.12, being that accredited courses specify specialist facilities and resources, and the vocational competency of requirements of trainers and assessors essential for the delivery of the course. The Tribunal accordingly makes no findings in relation to these issues.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal’s decision not to exercise the discretion under subsection 44(1) of the NVR Act to grant an application for the accreditation of the Course does not detract from the considerable effort made by AbilitySeer and its representatives to have a course in disability or NDIS support coordination accredited as a VET course. This is plainly an area in need of an accredited VET course to assist future support coordinators in their important task of assisting people with disability, especially those that are NDIS participants. In this regard, the development of the separate Training Package, which is awaiting endorsement by a simple majority of Commonwealth Skills’ Ministers, containing units of competency and qualifications in disability support, is evidence of the need for accreditation of such a course. Accordingly, AbilitySeer’s work over many years to seek to fill this requirement through the development of, and application to accredit, the Course is admirable. However, based on the evidence and applying the relevant legislative instruments, the Tribunal is not satisfied that AbilitySeer’s Course should be accredited as a VET course under subsection 44(1) of the NVR Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review pursuant to subsection 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

I certify that the preceding 143 (one hundred and forty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member W Frost.

.............................[sgd]..........................................
Associate
Dated: 1 July 2022

Date(s) of hearing:

7 and 8 April 2022

Date final submissions received:

Representative for Applicant:

6 April 2022

Mr Tim O’Hare, AbilitySeer Pty Ltd

Counsel for Respondent:

Ms Irene Sekler and Ms Kirsty Corby, Australian Government Solicitor

[2022] AATA 2129

1 July 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Natural Justice