Australian Academy of Management & Science Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority - [2021] AATA 335

Australian Academy of Management & Science Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2021] AATA 335 (2 March 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/5996, 2018/5998, 2018/5999, 2018/6000
Re:Australian Academy of Management & Science Pty Ltd
APPLICANT

AndAustralian Skills Quality Authority
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
Date:2 March 2021
Place:Sydney

Pursuant to section 41(3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), the stay order made on 12 February 2019, and varied by consent on 6 February 2020, is varied to impose the following conditions pursuant to section 41(6) of the AAT Act:
1 On and after the date of this order until the final determination of the Applications, the Applicant (by its officers, employees, agents, contractors or other representatives or by any other person or organisation acting on behalf of the Applicant):
1.1 must not request, receive or accept from any person (regardless of whether the person is a current or previous student of the Applicant or has not ever been a student of the Applicant), an application form (and if an application form, enquiry or expression of interest is or has already been received from a person, the Applicant is to immediately notify the person in writing that it is not accepting new enrolments or pre-enrolments until further notice); or
1.2 must not request, receive or accept a deposit, instalment or any other payment; or
1.3 must not enrol or pre-enrol any person;
in relation to enrolment or pre-enrolment into any of the Applicant’s courses.
1.4 must communicate with each currently enrolled student the following message by email, and is to post this information prominently on the opening page of its website:
“AAMS is presently a registered RTO for the purposes of the NVR Act and ESOS Act. The Australian Skills Quality Authority, the regulator of VET colleges, decided on 6 November 2020 to affirm its decision to not renew the registration of AAMS. AAMS has sought review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. AAMS cannot enrol any new students pending the outcome of that review. The Tribunal is expected to make a decision regarding the renewal of AAMS’s registration by about the middle of 2021. If AAMS is successful in that review, its registration will continue. If not, AAMS will cease operating. AAMS conveys this information so that prospective sudents can make fully informed choices about their education options.”

1.5 must, within two weeks of the Applicant issuing a student with a VET qualification or final statement of attainment, give to the Respondent a complete copy of the student’s file, including copies of all completed assessments and enrolment material.

......................................................[sgd].................
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where stay order granted in relation to decision not to renew registration under NVR Act and decision not to renew CRICOS registration under ESOS Act – request for variation of stay order by Respondent – factors to be considered in deciding whether to vary conditions of stay order – stay variation granted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 41, 42D
CASES
Australian Academy of Management & Science Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2013] AATA 530
Australian Institute of Technical Training Pty Ltd and Minister for Education and Training [2018] AATA 5392
Australian Vocational Learning Centre Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4725
Daily Update Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2014] AATA 118;
Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798
United Business College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 1389
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
2 March 2021
The application

The Respondent in the proceedings, Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), has applied to vary a stay order made on 12 February 2019 as varied by an order made on 6 February 2020. To avoid confusion, although ASQA is the Applicant for the variation of the stay order, it will be referred to as the Respondent in this decision, and the Applicant in the substantive proceedings will be referred to as the Applicant.
The Applicant provides vocational education courses in hospitality and community services, primarily to overseas students. The Respondent is the regulator.
The legislation
The relevant legislative provision is s 41 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act). Relevantly, it provides:
Operation and implementation of a decision that is subject to review
(1)       Subject to this section, the making of an application to the Tribunal for a review of a decision does not affect the operation of the decision or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision.
(2)       The Tribunal may, on request being made by a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal (in this section referred to as the relevant proceeding), if the Tribunal is of the opinion that it is desirable to do so after taking into account the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review, make such order or orders staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of the decision to which the relevant proceeding relates or a part of that decision as the Tribunal considers appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.
(3)       Where an order is in force under subsection (2) (including an order that has previously been varied on one or more occasions under this subsection), the Tribunal may, on request being made by a party to the relevant proceeding, make an order varying or revoking the first‑mentioned order.
…
(6)       An order in force under subsection (2) (including an order that has previously been varied on one or more occasions under subsection (3)):
(a)       is subject to such conditions as are specified in the order;
…
The evidence
The only evidence relied on was an affidavit of Jane Connors affirmed 13 January 2020 and filed by the Respondent. A second affidavit of Ms Connors was filed in response to an affidavit of an expert filed by the Applicant which was not relied upon. Ms Connors second affidavit was therefore not considered. It was given an exhibit number before it was clear that the affidavit of the Applicant’s expert was not relied upon.
The history of the matter
The four substantive applications were lodged in the Tribunal on 16 October 2018. The Applicant applied for a stay of all four decisions under review, which the Respondent contested. The stay application was heard on 12 November 2019. On 12 February 2019, a stay order was granted pursuant to s41(2) of the AAT Act, in relation to two of the four decisions under review:
The Tribunal considers that the following order is appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.
Pursuant to subsection 41(2) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal orders that:
2. the following decisions of the Respondent dated 19 September 2018 are stayed until the decision of the Tribunal on the applications for review comes into operation or until further order:
a. the decision not to renew the Applicant’s registration under the NVR Act (2018/5998); and
b. the decision not to renew the Applicant’s CRICOS registration under the ESOS Act (2018/5999).
Pursuant to subsection 41(6) of the AAT Act, Order 2 is subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant is restrained, from 12 February 2019, from enrolling any new students in any courses on either its VET scope under the NVR Act or CRICOS scope under the ESOS Act.
2. The Applicant is to communicate to each currently enrolled student the following message by email and is to post this information prominently on the opening page of its website:
"The Australian Skills Quality Authority, the regulator of VET Colleges, decided on 12 September 2018 to not renew the registration of AAMS. AAMS has sought review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. AAMS cannot enrol any new students pending the outcome of that review, which is presently expected to be concluded by mid 2019. If AAMS is successful in that review, its registration will continue. If not, AAMS will cease operating. AAMS has been ordered to publish and convey this information so that students can make fully informed choices about their education options."
3. The parties are to file with the Tribunal within 7 days from the date of this order an agreed timetable for the preparation and scheduling of the hearing for Tribunal matters 2018/5996, 2018/5998, 2018/5999 and 2018/6000. If this condition is not complied with, a directions hearing by telephone will be listed one business day after the expiry of the 7 days, at which time directions will be made by the Tribunal.
Almost a year elapsed.
The 6 February 2020 variation of that stay order was made by consent. It was a consequence of the parties agreeing to remit, subject to one exception, the decisions the subject of each of the four proceedings to the Respondent for reconsideration pursuant to s 42D(1) of the AAT Act. The Tribunal extended the time limit for the Respondent to reconsider the remitted decisions to 12 months after the remittal occurred pursuant to s 42D(5) of the AAT Act.
The 6 February 2020 variation removed conditions 1 and 2 of the 12 February 2019 stay order and imposed the following conditions and included the following notes:
Pursuant to section 41(3) of the AATAct, the stay order made by the Tribunal on 12 February 2019 is varied to include the following conditions imposed pursuant to section 41(6) of the AATAct:
5.1 The Applicant may enrol new students, up to a maximum of 400 students studying at any one time.
5.2The Applicant is to communicate to any new prospective student the following message in writing:
“AAMS is presently a registered RTO for the purposes of the NVR Act and ESOS Act. The Australian Skills Quality Authority, the regulator of VET colleges, is expected to make a decision regarding the renewal of AAMS’s registration on or before [the date 12 months after remittal]. AAMS conveys this information so that prospective students can make fully informed choices about their education options.”
Notes:
The Tribunal notes the parties’ agreement as to the following:
1. The Respondent will conduct an audit on the Applicant within 12 months after the above-mentioned remittal has occurred, but no earlier than 1 August 2020.
2. The reason for remittal is that the Applicant is in the process of creating and implementing new policies and procedures and this time period is necessary to be able to provide evidence of implementation of the new procedures and practices.
3. The ESOS capacity decision was made in error, and is not valid decision at law.
The Respondent carried out an audit in late October 2020. On 20 November 2020 the Respondent notified the Applicant that it had decided to affirm the reviewable decisions.[1] The reasons for the decisions are set out in the audit report which was an exhibit to Ms Connors’ affidavit.
[1] ST 121.
On 10 December 2020, the Respondent advised the Tribunal that it had affirmed the decisions under review on remittal and that the parties were discussing potential directions by consent. It also advised that it was filing and serving Supplementary Tribunal documents relevant to the remittal process and affirmed decisions comprising more than 4,000 pages.
The terms of the present application
On 17 December 2020, the Respondent made the present application to vary the stay order. On 5 February 2021, the Respondent provided to the Tribunal its proposed orders. They were in the following terms:
Pursuant to section 41(3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), the stay order varied by the Tribunal on 6 February 2020 is varied to impose the following conditions pursuant to section 41(6) of the AAT Act:
1. On and after the date of this order until the final determination of the Applications, the Applicant (by its officers, employees, agents, contractors or other representatives or by any other person or organisation acting on behalf of the Applicant), must not:
1.1 request, receive or accept from any person (regardless of whether the person is a current or previous student of the Applicant or has not ever been a student of the Applicant), an application form (and if an application form, enquiry or expression of interest is or has already been received from a person, the Applicant is to immediately notify the person in writing that it is not accepting new enrolments or pre-enrolments until further notice); or
1.2request, receive or accept a deposit, instalment or any other payment; or
1.3      enrol or pre-enrol any person;
in relation to enrolment or pre-enrolment into any of the Applicant’s    courses.
1.4Market, promote or advertise its vocational training services or any of its courses in Australia or overseas.
1.5      Issue VET statements of attainment or VET qualifications.
Post-hearing developments
The Respondent’s application for a variation of the stay order was contested by the Applicant, and the application was heard at an interlocutory hearing on 11 February 2021. After the hearing, the Respondent advised the Tribunal by email that it no longer pressed the condition restricting the Applicant from issuing qualifications. It sought the following alternative condition with the Applicant’s consent:
Within two weeks of the Applicant issuing a student with a VET qualification or final statement of attainment, the Applicant must give to the Respondent a complete copy of the student’s file, including copies of all completed assessments and enrolment material.
The Respondent advised that the proposed condition restraining the Applicant’s ability to enrol students remained contested by the parties.
It maintained its position with respect to a restriction on the Applicant’s ability to advertise VET courses. However, it proposed the following alternative condition to which the Applicant is agreeable – except for the underlined sentence, which is subject to the Tribunal’s reserved decision on the proposed condition restraining enrolments:
The Applicant is to communicate with each currently enrolled student the following message by email, and is to post this information prominently on the opening page of its website:
AAMS is presently a registered RTO for the purposes of the NVR Act and ESOS Act. The Australian Skills Quality Authority, the regulator of VET colleges, decided on 6 November 2020 to affirm its decision to not renew the registration of AAMS. AAMS has sought review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. AAMS cannot enrol any new students pending the outcome of that review. The Tribunal is expected to make a decision regarding the renewal of AAMS’s registration by about the middle of 2021. If AAMS is successful in that review, its registration will continue. If not, AAMS will cease operating. AAMS conveys this information so that prospective students can make fully informed choices about their education options.
On 12 February 2021 the Tribunal made directions for the filing of hearing certificates for the period May to August 2021 and the filing and serving of evidence. The last day for filing evidence is 22 April 2021.
Since the hearing of this application, the substantive applications have been set down for hearing from 5 to 8 July 2021.
The Respondent’s contentions
The Respondent contended that relevant factors to be considered for a variation of a stay order are akin to those factors for a grant of a stay as set out by President Downes J in Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798 (Scott). They include:
a)The prospects of success in the substantive proceeding.
b)The consequences for the applicant of the refusal / variation of a stay.
c)The public interest.
d)The consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions.
e)Whether the application(s) for review would be rendered nugatory.
f)Other relevant matters.
It contended that in this case the factors favouring its application outweighed factors against it. The factors favouring the making of the variation to the stay included prima facie poor prospects of success in the substantive proceedings, the public interest and the consequences for the Respondent in carrying out its functions.
The Respondent accepted that as a general proposition, a limitation on the ability of a college to enrol new students will have a negative impact on its ability to secure future funding, but contended that the Applicant had provided no evidence to support a finding to that effect, and therefore the Tribunal should infer the conditions proposed would have only a limited impact.
It contended that the Applicant had provided no evidence that the application for review would be rendered nugatory if the variation to the stay was made.
The Applicant’s contentions
Following is a summary of the Applicant’s contentions.
The Respondent misconceived the “onus” under s 41(3) of the AAT Act because it relies on a changed “prospects of success” argument which is an invalid consideration and does not address “the essential forensic elements” of which the Tribunal must be satisfied. The Tribunal is concerned with the protection of the final hearing.
The Respondent’s reliance on the principles set out in Scott was misconceived in relation to a variation of a stay order pursuant to s 41(3) of the AAT Act.
Senior Member Cameron in Australian Institute of Technical Training Pty Ltd and Minister for Education and Training [2018] AATA 5392 (Australian Institute) at [58]) said the following about the approach of examining each of the principles enunciated in authorities such as Scott in a variation application:
Whilst this approach is certainly open to the Tribunal it considers that it is not as a general rule an approach that ought to be universally applied to each case. It in effect becomes a rerun of the stay application which overall should be avoided.
(The Applicant did not include the concluding sentence of that paragraph:
Each application seeking to revoke or vary a stay order previously made must be considered individually on the facts and circumstances as they arise.)
The correct approach to an application to vary a stay is the “hybrid” approach discussed in in United Business College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 1389 (United Business College). This approach disregards the “prospect of success” issue, as a matter of principle.
The Applicant set out a summary of s 41(2) and the factors in Scott, and “re-oriented and expressed” them in terms of the no new enrolments condition sought, concluding that the variation of the stay would render a final hearing nugatory in circumstances where the Respondent complains about historical non-compliance but has “for practical purposes” acquiesced in making the “original decision and consent to the original stay, in redressing what is now said to be an egregious harm”.[2]
[2] Applicant’s written submissions at [28] and following.
Finally, the “historical non-compliance” argument is not well-founded when considered in light of the decision of Senior Member Taylor, in an earlier matter involving the Applicant, who was critical of the Respondent’s approach to assessment of non-compliance.[3] The Respondent’s approach has not altered. The Applicant will contend through its expert that the many asserted “non-compliances” reflect the same failure by the Respondent. Those are matters to be ventilated and tested at the final hearing.
[3] Australian Academy of Management & Science Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2013] AATA 530 (Australian Academy of Management and Science).

During oral submissions, the Applicant argued that the Respondent had not led evidence that students were at risk if enrolled. Ms Connors’ evidence refers to a pre-Covid-19 immigration situation. It proposed a limit of 100 students. I understood it to submit that the prospect of new students cannot be understood while borders are shut.
Consideration
Following the post-hearing developments, the question to be answered is whether the stay order should be varied to preclude the Applicant from enrolling students. The message to be communicated to currently enrolled students and posted on the Applicant’s website will depend on my finding on that issue. That was accepted by the Applicant.
I agree with the view the Tribunal expressed in both Australian Institute and United Business College that “reruns” of stay applications should be avoided when applications to vary a stay order are made.
The present application is a consequence of developments following the by consent variation to the stay order on 6 February 2020. When that variation was made the expectation was that the Applicant would continue the process of creating and implementing new policies and procedures over a period of about eight months and would then be able to provide evidence of implementation of the new procedures and practices. Following its October 2020 audit, the Respondent was not satisfied that the Applicant had done so. Regulatory compliance was not achieved according to the Respondent.
Prospects of success
Contrary to Applicant’s contention, I do not accept that prospects of success are not to be considered in relation to an application to vary a stay order. The Tribunal did not state that as a principle in United Business College. Indeed, it did take that consideration into account and found that it did not support the College’s stay order variation request.[4] Neither of the other cases the Applicant referred to supports its contention.[5]
[4] At [53] to [59].
[5] Daily Update Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2014] AATA 118; Australian Institute.
I find that the Applicant has, prima facie, low prospects of success in the substantive proceedings. The uncontradicted evidence of Ms Connors is that the Applicant has a long history of compliance failures, with deficiencies identified and outstanding since the Respondent’s audit in November 2017. She participated in the October 2020 audit. The Applicant was given an opportunity in 2020 to “continue” the process of creating and implementing new policies and procedures over about eight months but did not do so to the satisfaction of the Respondent.
Ms Connors’ conclusion was:
Based on my experience in auditing hundreds of providers, and having regard to the history of the Applicant’s compliance posture and recent audit, I am not satisfied that the Applicant will ever have the capacity or ability to meet its minimum regulatory requirements either now, or in future. In my view, the Applicant presents a serious risk to the community (particularly hospitality and community service organisations), future students, and jeopardising Australia’s reputation for quality VET.[6]
[6] Affidavit of Jane Connors dated 13 January 2021 at [69].
During oral submissions, I understood the Applicant to claim that the creation and implementation of new policies and procedures could not be achieved within those eight months because enrolments could not be increased because of COVID-19. In her affidavit, Ms Connors stated that at the time of the October 2020 audit 142 students were enrolled.[7] It was accepted by both parties during the hearing that the current enrolment is 35 students. I do not accept that being unable to increase the number of enrolments was an impediment to implementing measures to meet regulatory requirements.
[7] At [41].
I do not accept the Applicant’s claim that the Respondent has somehow acquiesced with the Applicant’s claimed non-compliances. The Respondent did not consent to the 2019 stay order. It did consent to the 2020 variation which gave the Applicant an opportunity to show that it had achieved compliance. The Respondent now seeks, in effect, to return to the conditions imposed in the 2019 order.
The Applicant chose not to rely on its expert’s affidavit that had been filed. It asserted that the criticisms of historical non-compliance were not well-founded having regard to the decision of the Tribunal in Australian Academy of Management and Science. The Tribunal’s decision was very considered and measured. The Applicant was successful. That decision was given in relation to the Applicant’s operations more than seven years ago. There being no evidence to contradict the Respondent’s evidence in this application, I give no weight to that decision.
The consequences for the applicant
The Applicant provided no evidence about the consequences for it if the no enrolment condition were imposed or of the impact on its operations of COVID-19. It had 142 students at the time of the audit in 2020 and 35 at the time of the hearing. I infer those numbers reflect the impact of COVID-19.
During oral submissions, the Applicant’s legal representative talked about the industry being “hammered” by the border restrictions with the industry being closed off to international arrivals and the Applicant had not been enrolling students to any degree in the past year. He suggested that the ability to fund this case depends on new enrolments but also said that when borders are shut you cannot consider enrolment of future students. I found the submissions to be confusing.
The Applicant did not point to any information to indicate that special arrangements are being considered for allowing international students to enter Australia in the foreseeable future. The Respondent pointed out that Parliament has not intervened in the VET sector to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. I infer that primarily the Applicant wants to be able to enrol or re-enrol international students currently in Australia. Secondly, I infer that the Applicant wishes to retain the possibility of enrolling new student if borders reopen, either generally or specifically to international students, or if an announcement is made that that will happen from a particular date.
Current generally available information about COVID-19, including that vaccinations have just begun in Australia and are being given overseas, does not suggest that borders will re-open to international students or anyone else, within any time frame.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant can enrol local students. That is not its business model and it apparently has not done so during 2020 after COVID-19 affected its operations. I infer that it is unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future.
The detriment to the Applicant if the variation is made will be to deprive it of a possibility of earning income from enrolling or re-enrolling international students currently in Australia from the date of the variation until the Tribunal makes its decision. It will also be deprived of the possibility of earning income from enrolling international students if they are allowed to enter Australia or a timeframe is set out for that to occur, before the Tribunal gives its decision in the substantive matters.
This consideration weighs against making the variation to the stay.
The public interest
In Australian Vocational Learning Centre Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4725, the Tribunal observed at [42] that:
Regulatory bodies are established, in part, to ensure that the public interest is protected in the areas of their competence and the Tribunal should be cautious about taking steps which may derogate from the protection of the public interest by failing to give due regard (although not qualified deference) to their assessments in such matters. As the Tribunal said in Metro College “The regulatory regime assumes there is a public interest in ensuring these programs are properly run according to recognised standards”.
[Citation omitted]
I accept the Respondent’s submission that the proposed no enrolment condition is consistent with managing risk and safeguarding the public interest by quarantining on-going non-compliant training and assessment by the Applicant. It will protect future students and the international reputation of Australia’s vocational education sector. Those matters have to be considered in the context of the impact of COVID-19, which currently prevents any new enrolments of international students who are overseas and will do so for the foreseeable future.
The public interest favours the variation of the stay principally because it will operate to prevent enrolments or re-enrolment of students currently in Australia. The public interest favours the variation to a lesser extent in relation to its effect of preventing enrolments of overseas international students in the event that the current COVID-19 border and consequential enrolment restrictions are eased before the decisions in the substantive matters are given.
The consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions
The no enrolment condition is consistent with upholding the integrity of the regulatory scheme, including the role of the regulator, particularly in light of the result of the 2020 audit following a period of eight months the Applicant was given to create and implement new policies and procedures to demonstrate its compliance.
Whether the application(s) for review would be rendered nugatory
The Applicant’s principle argument was that the imposition of the no enrolment condition would render the applications for review of the substantive decisions nugatory. It has not provided any evidence, including financial information, that that is so. It operated following the 12 February 2019 stay order when no new students were permitted to be enrolled until the variation to that stay order made on 6 February 2020, and has operated since COVID-19 struck when it states through its representative that it has not enrolled anyone in a degree course. I understood that claim to mean it had enrolled no new students. Currently it has 35 students.
I am not persuaded that varying the stay to include the no enrolment condition would render the applications for review nugatory. I give no weight to this consideration.
Other relevant matters
No other relevant matters were raised by the parties.
Conclusion
The factors favouring variation of the stay by including the no enrolment condition, are prospects of success, the public interest and the consequences to the Respondent. Those factors outweigh those against variation which are the consequences for the Applicant. The proposed variation should be made.
Decision
Pursuant to section 41(3) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), the stay order made on 12 February 2019, and varied by consent on 6 February 2020, is varied to impose the following conditions pursuant to section 41(6) of the AAT Act:
1 On and after the date of this order until the final determination of the Applications, the Applicant (by its officers, employees, agents, contractors or other representatives or by any other person or organisation acting on behalf of the Applicant):
1.1 must not request, receive or accept from any person (regardless of whether the person is a current or previous student of the Applicant or has not ever been a student of the Applicant), an application form (and if an application form, enquiry or expression of interest is or has already been received from a person, the Applicant is to immediately notify the person in writing that it is not accepting new enrolments or pre-enrolments until further notice); or
1.2 must not request, receive or accept a deposit, instalment or any other payment; or
1.3 must not enrol or pre-enrol any person;
in relation to enrolment or pre-enrolment into any of the Applicant’s courses.
1.4 must communicate with each currently enrolled student the following message by email, and is to post this information prominently on the opening page of its website:
“AAMS is presently a registered RTO for the purposes of the NVR Act and ESOS Act. The Australian Skills Quality Authority, the regulator of VET colleges, decided on 6 November 2020 to affirm its decision to not renew the registration of AAMS. AAMS has sought review of that decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. AAMS cannot enrol any new students pending the outcome of that review. The Tribunal is expected to make a decision regarding the renewal of AAMS’s registration by about the middle of 2021. If AAMS is successful in that review, its registration will continue. If not, AAMS will cease operating. AAMS conveys this information so that prospective students can make fully informed choices about their education options.”
1.5 must, within two weeks of the Applicant issuing a student with a VET qualification or final statement of attainment, give to the Respondent a complete copy of the student’s file, including copies of all completed assessments and enrolment material.

I certify that the preceding 54 (fifty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

...........................................[sgd].............................
Associate
Dated: 2 March 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 11 February 2021

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr Nicholas Blaker, Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Bradley Dean

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Adam Grullemans, ASQA

Date(s) of hearing:	11 February 2021
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr Nicholas Blaker, Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Bradley Dean
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Adam Grullemans, ASQA