Commonwealth of Australia v Harrison (No. 2)

The Commonwealth of Australia brought proceedings against Ms Donna Amanda Harrison, also known as Donna Amanda Hawthorn, for multiple contraventions of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth). The respondent, through her business Glow Salon, offered to provide Vocational Education and Training (VET) courses or parts of VET courses, and purported to issue VET statements of attainment and VET qualifications, despite not being a registered training organisation. The respondent also used and displayed false VET qualifications. The respondent's actions involved persistent deliberate deceit for monetary gain, caused demonstrated loss and damage to individuals, undermined the integrity of the VET system, and posed potential harm to public health. The Commonwealth sought pecuniary penalties to send a message of general and specific deterrence, as well as costs.

The court had to decide on the appropriate amount of pecuniary penalties to impose on the respondent and whether it was appropriate to award costs in a fixed amount. The court also had to consider the evidence presented by the Commonwealth, including affidavits from ASQA investigators and affected individuals, to determine the harm caused by the respondent's actions. The court found that a total civil penalty of $571,000.00 was appropriate, and given the respondent's lack of engagement with the proceedings, it was appropriate to award the Commonwealth's costs in a fixed amount of $100,000.00.

The court concluded that the respondent's conduct warranted significant penalties to send a strong message of general and specific deterrence. The court considered the harm caused to individuals, the impact on the VET sector, and the need to uphold the integrity of the system. The court also found that awarding costs in a fixed amount was appropriate, as the respondent's lack of engagement made it unlikely she would participate in any taxation, incurring unnecessary costs for the Commonwealth.

The court ordered the respondent to pay pecuniary penalties totalling $571,000.00 and to pay the Commonwealth's costs fixed in the amount of $100,000.00. The penalties were broken down according to the specific contraventions declared in the earlier judgment. This decision highlights the importance of upholding the integrity of the VET system and the consequences for those who engage in deceptive practices for monetary gain.