Elite Academy Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

This matter concerned an application by Elite Academy Australia Pty Ltd for a stay of a decision made by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) to cancel the company's registration as a Registered Training Organisation (RTO). The dispute arose from ASQA's findings of non-compliance in the delivery of the Certificate III in Individual Support qualification, a course critical for individuals working with vulnerable populations in aged care and disability sectors. The application was heard by Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant a stay of ASQA's decision to cancel Elite Academy Australia's registration pending a full merits review. This required the Tribunal to consider the prospects of success of the applicant's appeal, the consequences for the applicant and other parties if a stay were granted or refused, and whether a refusal of the stay would render the subsequent review nugatory. The Tribunal also had to weigh the public interest in ensuring the integrity of vocational education and training against the potential hardship to the applicant, its staff, and students.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal found that Elite Academy Australia had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it had adequately addressed the identified non-compliances, particularly concerning the engagement of external consultants, the revision of its training and assessment strategy for its sole offering, and other audit findings. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide adequate details of its financial position to substantiate claims of potential financial hardship. Consequently, the Tribunal assessed the applicant's prospects of success at the merits hearing as low. While acknowledging the severe consequences for the applicant, staff, and students if the stay were refused, the Tribunal gave significant weight to the public interest in preventing improperly qualified individuals from working with vulnerable people. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a substantial basis for a stay, nor had it demonstrated that refusing a stay would render the merits review nugatory, whereas ASQA had demonstrated a genuine public interest in its cancellation decision taking effect.

Accordingly, the Tribunal refused the application for a stay.