Galaxy Day Care PTY LTD and Secretary, Department of Education and Training
[2018] AATA 4675
•20 December 2018
Galaxy Day Care PTY LTD and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] AATA 4675 (20 December 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/6951
Re:Galaxy Day Care PTY LTD
APPLICANT
AndSecretary, Department of Education and Training
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
Date:20 December 2018
Place:Sydney
The application for a stay of the Department’s decision of 21 November 2018 is refused.
...........................[sgd].............................................
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – request for stay order – decisions under review to cancel registration as a provider of day care services under A New Tax System (Family Assistance)(Administration) Act 1999 (Cth) – factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant a stay – stay refused
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999
Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010
CASES
Australian College of Vocational Studies Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority (General) [2018] AATA 1088
Azaria Family Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] FCA 1640
Institute of Training Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4127
Galaxy Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] FCA 1549
Madafferi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] 63 ALD 373
Moonlight Family Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] AATA 2706
Panganiban and Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2016] AATA 703
Re Dart and Director-General of Social Services (1982) 4 ALD 553
Re Dekanic and Tax Agents’ Board of New South Wales [1982] 6 ALD 240
Re Metro College of Technology Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (unreported) [2015] Application 2015/6137
Re Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Hitchcock [2006] AATA 1127
Rust-Oleum Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority [2017] AATA 298
Scott v Australian Securities And Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798
Secretary, department of Employment and Workplace relations and Anastasiadis [2007] AATA 1065
Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] AATA 1463
Technical Education Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 3047
Trades College Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 1703
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Education and Care Services National Regulations
REASONS FOR DECISION
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
20 December 2018
This is an application for the stay of a decision made by the Department of Education and Training (the Respondent) to cancel the registration of Galaxy Day Care Pty Ltd (the Applicant) as a provider of day care services under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance)(Administration) Act 1999 (the Act).
BACKGROUND
On 2 October 2018 the Respondent cancelled the Applicant’s approval pursuant to its powers under section 195H(1) of the Act. The Applicant appealed to the Federal Court for a stay of that decision on 8 October 2018 and also made an application to the Respondent for an internal review of their decision on 10 October 2018.
The Federal Court granted a stay until 22 November 2018 in order to provide time for the internal review to be conducted.[1] On 21 November 2018 the Respondent notified the Applicant that its internal review had resulted in an affirmation of the original cancellation decision.
[1] Galaxy Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] FCA 1549.
The Applicant returned to the Federal Court on 26 November 2018 requesting a further stay until an appeal against the decision could be heard by this Tribunal and, on the same day applied to this Tribunal for such a review. The Federal Court granted a stay effective to 6 February 2019 or upon the date on which the Tribunal “determines the Applicant’s application for a stay of the Decision, whichever is sooner.”[2]
[2] Respondent’s Notice Relating to an Application for a Stay Order at [Annexure B].
The hearing for a stay order as requested by the Applicant was held on 18 December 2018.
STAY APPLICATIONS
Stay applications may be brought under section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) which provides:
(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.
It is important to distinguish matters which are relevant for the Tribunal’s consideration in stay applications from those which are not.
In particular, the Tribunal, in stay applications, is not concerned with a merits review of the original decision under appeal, nor with a detailed examination of matters which will ultimately have to be considered by the Tribunal in any full hearing.[3]
[3] Secretary, department of Employment and Workplace relations and Anastasiadis [2007] AATA 1065; Re Dart and Director-General of Social Services (1982) 4 ALD 553.
What is central to a stay application is the extent to which a stay is necessary, in the express words of s. 41(2) of the AAT Act “for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.”
The focus on this central issue was affirmed by the Federal Court in Madafferi where, in relation to an analogous (but not exactly equal) provision in migration legislation the court described as “the primary question” in a stay application, how such a decision “will impact in any way on the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the appeal.”[4]
[4] Madafferi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] 63 ALD 373 at [24].
Section 41(2) also requires, as its other limb, that the Tribunal have regard to “the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review.” The Tribunal will give consideration to who might, in this instance, be encompassed by such a description, below.
These limbs of section 41(2) of the AAT Act are distinguishable from the “balance of convenience” which was the basis upon which the Federal Court stay was granted[5] and which was used in the Tribunal’s 1982 decision in Dekanic.[6]
[5] Galaxy Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] FCA 1549 at [29].
[6] Re Dekanic and Tax Agents’ Board of New South Wales [1982] 6 ALD 240 at [242].
Something akin to a “check list” of items for consideration in stay applications was provided by then AAT President Downes in Scott[7] as follows:
Application having been made for a stay of proceedings under s 41 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, it is nevertheless incumbent upon me now to consider whether a stay is appropriate. In considering the application, it is appropriate for me to consider a range of matters, including:
1.The prospects of success.
2.The consequence for the applicant of the refusal of a stay.
3.The public interest.
4The consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions depending upon whether a stay is granted or not.
5.Whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted.
6.Other matters that are relevant, amongst which I would include the length of time that the ban has already been in place and the gap between today and the hearing of the application.
[7] Scott v Australian Securities And Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798 at [4].
The issues for the Tribunal’s consideration in stay applications has also been elucidated by Senior member Taylor SC in Panganiban[8] to include:
[8] Panganiban and Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2016] AATA 703 at [7].
(a) an applicant’s prospects of success, in obtaining a materially different outcome as a result of the review proceeding;
(b) the functions and responsibilities of the statutory decision maker, the nature and purpose of the reviewable decision, and the public interest in relation to it;
(c) the reasons proffered to support, or oppose, the stay application, and the potential practical consequences of any stay;
(d) the practical consequences of the decision under review (to the parties and to any interested persons), unless its operation is the subject of a relevant stay, after taking into account:
(i) conditions that might be imposed as a term of any stay;
(ii) the timing of the reviewable decision, the application, and any likely review hearing;
(iii) the ability of the applicant to pursue the review proceedings effectively; and
(iv) the likely practical utility of any favourable review outcome.
It should also be noted that Deputy President Forgie, in reference to the “check list” in Scott has observed that it “should not be regarded as a comprehensive list of all matters that may be relevant in a particular case.”[9]
[9] Trades College Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 1703 at [38].
However as the two cited lists encompass essentially the same material the Tribunal proposes to consider this application against the tests outlined in Scott.
In order to undertake this exercise the Tribunal must have regard to some of the more detailed matters leading to the original cancellation decision and the Applicant’s response to it.
SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS
During April and May 2018 the Respondent wrote to the Applicant advising of its intention to impose sanctions upon it for various identified breaches of both the Act and the National Law and Regulations[10]. The Act provides for a range of sanctions to be available to the regulator (the Department) up to and including, cancellation of an applicant’s registration.[11]
[10] Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (the National Law) and Education and Care Services National Regulations (National Regulations).
[11] Section 195H(1)
The Applicant was required to provide responses to the various findings which it did during May, June and July 2018. These representations were considered by the Respondent which, as outlined above, made its original cancellation decision on 2 October 2018. The Applicant requested an internal review of the decision and provided further material to the Respondent which, nevertheless, reaffirmed the cancellation decision on 21 November 2018.
The basis of the cancellation decision lies in the Respondent having found the Applicant to be seriously non-compliant, and indeed misleading, in its reporting of its activities under section 219N of the Act; making false claims for payment of child care benefits and breaching the ratio requirements of educators to children. It found these breaches to have taken place over a lengthy period from July 2017 to April 2018.
These breaches were numerous, including 112 occasions when the Applicant made inaccurate claims that services were provided by educators who were overseas at the time of reported sessions; 118 where children were overseas and 210 where children were no longer in receipt of the Applicant’s services. There were some 700 further instances related to breaches of ratio requirements or misreporting resulting in overpayments of public money.
The Respondent also identified breaches or non-compliance which had taken place after the issuing of the original notification to the Applicant of the possible imposition of sanctions.[12]
[12] Respondent’s Submission in support of opposition to stay application at [45].
The Respondent examined the submissions of the Applicant and in particular an Affidavit of Ms Ruby Akrong, the sole director and shareholder of the Applicant setting out the steps which the Applicant proposed to take to address the non-compliance issues.[13]
[13] Applicant’s Submission, Affidavit of Ms Ruby Akrong dated 26 November 2018.
It concluded that:
“these additional matters raised by the Applicant do not carry significant weight in the decision on whether to grant the Stay Application. The Respondent considers that, essentially, the additional processes purported to have been undertaken by the Applicant are either purely in response to the cancellation process undertaken by the Department, or alternatively do not appear to have been effective in reducing areas of non-compliance by the Applicant with the family assistance law and the National Regulations.” [14]
[14] Respondent’s Notice Relating to an Application for a Stay Order at [42].
It is against this background of information, and with the material before it, including Ms Akrong’s affidavit and two volumes of attached submissions, that the Tribunal turns to consideration of the merits of the stay application itself.
WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS OF SUCCESS IN A FULL MERITS HEARING?
Although there is some recent authority suggesting that “Prospects of success have no place”[15] in the considerations of the Tribunal, nevertheless it has been the Tribunal’s past practice to give them at least some consideration, albeit within the strictures of section 41(2) of the AAT Act.
[15] Rust-Oleum Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority [2017] AATA 298 at [36] per DP Forgie.
The Tribunal cannot, on the material before it, rate such prospects favourably, despite the submission of the Applicant. There has been an identified history of substantial non-compliance in a number of areas and over a prolonged period of time. Even after the original notification of an intention to impose sanctions, breaches and non-compliance continued. [16]
[16] Respondent’s Submission in support of opposition to stay application at [45].
Matters put to the Tribunal by the Respondent included:
·serious discrepancies in the Department’s official records and the claims in Ms Akrong’s affidavit related to both numbers of registered children and registered educators;[17]
·failures to pass onto parents, or to remit to the Department, payments made in terms of child care subsidies as required by statute; and[18]
·discrepancies in claims made by the Applicant in relation to their degree of financial dependency upon Commonwealth payments.
[17] Respondent’s Submission in support of opposition to stay application at [Annexure H].
[18] Department of Education and Training: Notice of Review Decision (21 November 2018) at [37]-[38].
Although it is not the role of the Tribunal to determine these differences at this stage, the fact that the Respondent’s claims were not refuted by the Applicant cannot but be taken as a suggestion related to the ultimate prospects of success.
The Applicant put to the Tribunal that the failures to meet the requirements of accurate reporting under section 219N of the Act were not the responsibility of the Principal but rather of its servants and that the engagement of new consultants and systems should be taken as evidence that adequate remediation activity was in place.
Although the Federal Court has expressed a view that the “errors of others” may be a mitigating factor which should be given “proper consideration”,[19] it remains fundamental to the whole regulatory scheme that ultimate responsibility lies with the Principal of any registered organisation. As the Tribunal said in Moonlight Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training:
“Finally, I see no merit in Moonlight blaming the educators involved: Moonlight had a clear obligation imposed on it by Commonwealth law and it is not in point to explain away failure to meet that obligation by referring to the error of others. This shows us in my view as a failure of governance which is central to the admitted breaches of the Applicant.”[20]
[19] Azaria Family Day Care Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] FCA 1640 at [33]-[36].
[20] Moonlight Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] AATA 2706 at [26].
This particular Tribunal considered very similar matters in Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training[21] and came to the conclusion that the steps proposed by way of remediation were inadequate and not likely to be of effect. All the same elements of both non-compliance and response are evident in this instance and the Tribunal sees no reason to come to a conclusion different from that in its previous determination.
[21] Sunrising Family Day Care Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2018] AATA 1463.
In that same determination the Tribunal also noted, with reference to where responsibility for preventing misreporting to the Department laid that: “Critically, what needs to be in place as a condition precedent of any complying operation is a sound and effective governance structure.”[22]
[22] Ibid at [124].
Similarly, in Australian College of Vocational Studies, the Tribunal expressed a view that the degree of “urgent remedial work” which that applicant would need to implement in order to justify a stay was of such an order of magnitude as to render its prospects of ultimate success so limited that it was a factor weighing against the grant of a stay.[23]
[23] Australian College of Vocational Studies Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority (General) [2018] AATA 1088 at [47].
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE APPLICANT IF STAY IS REFUSED?
There is no doubt that there would be adverse consequences for the Applicant in terms of loss of revenue, loss of employment and perhaps reputational damage. However there is also evidence that some 22 of the Applicant’s identified 47 educators[24] have moved to other service providers, as have several identified children.[25]
[24] Affidavit of Ms Ruby Akrong at [7].
[25] Respondent’s Notice Relating to an Application for a Stay Order at [68].
Further aspects related to the Applicant’s financial position are discussed below and the Tribunal is aware that potential hardship to the Applicant from a financial point of view is a legitimate concern to be put before it.[26]
[26] Re Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Hitchcock [2006] AATA 1127 at [7]-[8].
However, it must be repeated that the financial or employment consequences of the refusal of a stay are not the central issues – the issue is the extent to which the stay is necessary to allow the Applicant to pursue its rights and opportunities in “securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.”
The Applicant urged upon the Tribunal the proposition that, in the absence of income from child care benefits, not only would it suffer financial disadvantage (with the potential to be put into liquidation) but that equally it would be unable to sustain adequate legal representation to allow the substantive issues to be determined in the merits review.
No evidence was put to the Tribunal in relation to the liquidity or current assets of the Applicant or of its core financial position or viability. Without this, the assertion that lack of child care payments leads to an inability to pursue the matters at a merits hearing is unsustainable.
The Tribunal further notes the submission of the Respondent that the Applicant, regardless of the outcome of this stay application, remains registered as a provider under the aegis of the State regulator[27] and is not prohibited from carrying on its business should it be able to attract clients on the basis of value for money for the services it provides.
[27] Respondent’s Notice Relating to an Application for a Stay Order at [Annexure I].
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
In another decision given by this specific Tribunal, the centrality of the public interest in considering stay applications was highlighted. On that occasion this Tribunal stated:
“In the view of the Tribunal, the public interest is best served by not allowing the Applicant to continue to operate, as it is, in a way which is non-compliant with the Standards and in the absence of immediate and effective remedial action having commenced.”[28]
[28] Institute of Training Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4127 at [87].
A similar position was outlined in Trade College Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority[29] where the Tribunal held that the public interest in having a registered provider meet the required standards and conditions laid down in legislation outweighed any disadvantage to an individual non-complying provider.
[29] [2018] AATA 1703 at [67].
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 that public interest by failing to give due regard (although not unqualified 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 recognized standards.”[30]
[30] Re Metro College of Technology Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (unreported) [2015] Application 2015/6137 at [10].
THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE RESPONDENT IF A STAY GRANTED
This issue was clearly articulated by Senior Member Taylor in Panganiban[31] as follows (citations omitted)
- The precondition requiring the Tribunal to take into account “the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review” ordinarily requires the Tribunal to have regard to the decision maker’s position in relation to the stay application: AAT Act s 41(4). Together with the basic criteria for the exercise of the stay power, it also requires the Tribunal to have regard to the statutory scheme relevant to the reviewable decision. This is because the statutory scheme is likely to be critical to a proper understanding of both the practical consequences of the reviewable decision, and the relevance of the public interest to that decision, and to the exercise of the stay discretion.
- The nature of the procedures involved in the reviewable decision, the specificity of the findings the decision involves, and the interests the exercise of the statutory power are intended to serve, may provide a proper basis for refusing a stay application. They are particularly likely to do so where the available material does not conduce to an appropriate degree of satisfaction that the review process has a substantial prospect of a more favourable outcome.
[31] Panganiban and Australian Securities & Investments Commission [2016] AATA 703.
As already indicated in reference to public interest considerations, the integrity of regulatory schemes and the central role of the systems regulator are proper matters for the Tribunal’s consideration.[32]In this instance the Tribunal agrees with the submission of the Respondent that failure to determine this matter within a reasonable period of time places it in a difficult position vis-à-vis its statutory responsibilities for making payments of fees, or collection of debts and the protection of the public revenues.[33]
[32] Trades College Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 1703 at [40],[63], [67].
[33] Respondent’s Notice Relating to an Application for a Stay Order at [82].
The Tribunal also accepts the Respondent’s submission that, were a stay to be granted, additional administrative burdens would be placed upon it, as it would be necessary for it to move from automatic to manual processing of various categories of data.
POSSIBLY RENDERING THE FINAL REVIEW PROCESS NUGATORY
The Applicant has not demonstrated to the Tribunal that it would be unable to carry forward its appeal against the reviewable cancellation decision, other than advancing arguments about the immediate financial impact of no stay being granted on its business operations.
This matter was addressed by the Tribunal in Technical Education Australia[34] where Senior Member Cameron remarked:
[125] The Applicant contended that if it ultimately succeeded at the final hearing but in the interim suffered “irreparable damage” as a result of revocation of the interim stay order, the application for review would be nugatory. The justification for this contention was that the purpose of the final hearing is to grant relief to a successful applicant and therefore avoid irreparable damage flowing from the decision under review. This contention obviously presupposes that the Applicant would become insolvent in the interim or its reputation so damaged prior to the final hearing that it could not “effectively recover commercially”.
[126] The Tribunal has some difficulty with this approach for several reasons. Firstly, as noted previously, there is just insufficient evidence to conclude that the Applicant would become insolvent or its reputation would be so damaged. Apart from some bare assertions, there is no evidence that enables the Tribunal to reach a view one way or another, as to what if any, reputational damage might be suffered by the Applicant in the event that the stay order was revoked.
[128] Overall, given the limited evidence, the Tribunal cannot place much weight on this factor.
[34] Technical Education Australia Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 3047.
The Tribunal has noted the financial and expense details provided by the Applicant in Ms Akrong’s affidavit (at paragraph 26). It is in no position to assess whether or not these are reasonable in all the circumstances, although it notes that “educator fees” in excess of $392,000 per month appears high in relation to staff employed. Similarly, as already noted, there is no evidence of the current liquidity position of the Applicant, particularly given that the Applicant has apparently received over $1,200,000 in child care fee subsidy assistance since 2 July 2018.[35]
[35] Respondent’s Notice Relating to an Application for a Stay Order at [88].
The Tribunal has accepted the principle that where an applicant, by virtue of a stay not being granted, is genuinely likely to become insolvent and cease to operate, then that would mean that “the Applications would be rendered nugatory or pointless.”[36] However the burden of proof lies heavily upon any applicant to establish such a case. Mere assertion or speculation is not enough. The Applicant, in this instance, has not discharged that onus.
[36] Australian College of Vocational Studies Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority (General) [2018] AATA 1088 at [78].
OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
It is under this heading that the Tribunal turns to consider “the interests of any persons who may be affected by the review.”
In this instance, the principal group of such persons must be the parents of the children currently enrolled with the Applicant. There is no doubt that parents would be affected were the service to close, but that is not necessarily the consequence of a stay not being granted. As explained above, the Applicant remains registered under the aegis of the NSW regulator and can continue to provide services.
The Respondent has provided evidence of a number of both educators and children who have moved to other providers.[37]
[37] Ibid at [Annexure H].
Ms Akrong, in her affidavit claims that as at the end of November 2018 there were approximately 500 registered children from 356 families who may be affected (paragraph 7). This is disputed by the Respondent which reports (as at 26 November 2018) 359 children from 231 families.[38]
[38] Idem.
Contrary to Ms Akrong’s claim (paragraph 29) that there is only one other family day care operator in the same location (Prestons, NSW), the Respondent has provided details of 14 such facilities in the same general area, although admittedly not all are immediately accessible in terms of distance or travel times.[39]
[39] Respondent’s Notice Relating to an Application for a Stay Order at [67].
No details of the five staff members employed are before the Tribunal and so it is not possible to give any degree of informed consideration to their positions or future.
The Tribunal has made previous references to the protection of the public revenues and this must count as another relevant matter which it is legitimate to take into account. It forms, as do many such administrative decisions part of the fabric of good government in Australia.
To quote again from this Tribunal’s own previous decision in Institute of Training:
[70] It is important to note that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, apart from exercising jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of specific statutes, and not having a general jurisdiction across all Commonwealth administrative decisions, is part of an administrative law system which should be conducted by reference to the “standards of good government”.[40] It is an:
instrument of government administration and designed to act where decisions have been made in the course of government administration but which are in the view of the Tribunal not acceptable when tested against the requirements of good government.[41]
[71] “Good government” includes both the protection of the public interest and protecting the integrity of the national vocational education system.[42]
[40] Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 307 at [334] per Smithers J.
[41] Ibid at [335].
[42] Institute of Training Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4127.
A similar degree of consideration applies to the system of child care subsidies and the operations of the nationally regulated system of child care providers.
CONCLUSION
Consideration of all the matters placed before the Tribunal must be undertaken in the light of the express purpose of s. 41(2) of the AAT Act which is that stays should be granted essentially “for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review” and the legitimate interests of other parties “affected by the review”.
The Tribunal is not persuaded that the granting of a stay in this instance is required in order to ensure that those express objectives are met. On the other hand it is persuaded that the Tribunal’s overall responsibility to promote “good government”, in this instance via protection of the public interest, weighs against a stay being granted.
DECISION
The application for a stay of the Department’s decision of 21 November 2018 is refused.
I certify that the preceding 62 (sixty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
.............................[sgd]...........................................
Associate
Dated: 20 December 2018
Date(s) of hearing: 18 December 2018 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Mykkeltvedt Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr T Kheir, Birchgrove Legal Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr D Hertzberg, Department of Education and Training
3
14
0