Graham-Micett and Secretary, Department of Education

[2024] AATA 2162

Graham-Micett and Secretary, Department of Education [2024] AATA 2162 (1 July 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2022/3617

Re:Louise Graham-Micett

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Education

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member Ranson

Date:1 July 2024

Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.

.................................[SGD].......................................
Member Ranson

Catchwords

HECS-HELP – remission of debt – re-crediting of debt – whether special circumstances apply under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) – special circumstances do not apply – decision under review affirmed

Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth)

Secondary Materials
Administration Guidelines 2012
Higher Education Support (Administration) Guidelines 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member Ranson

1 July 2024

BACKGROUND

1. Ms Graham-Micett (Ms Graham) was studying at Queensland University of Technology in 2021 to be a nurse. She enrolled in a unit of study involving a placement at a hospital. QUT recorded her as having failed that unit of study. She was very unhappy about that decision for a variety of reasons and sought a review of it with QUT, which declined to find special circumstances applied in her case. She then applied to this Tribunal for a review of that decision. She seeks to have that unit removed from her study record and remission of the associated HECS debt.

2. Ms Graham had originally been allocated to a local hospital near to where she lives. To secure a position anywhere she had to have, amongst other things, two COVID-19 vaccinations and she had to provide evidence of that by a certain time. She says she did that. QUT says she did not, and they reallocated the place to another student and later allocated her to another hospital on the other side of town to where she lives.

3. There is no dispute Ms Graham did not complete the unit of study. By 5 November 2021, she was advised she had failed the placement and she finished at the hospital that day when her placement for the unit of study was terminated.

4. The purported treatment by her facilitator at the hospital, which Ms Graham says was bullying, coupled with difficult transport logistics and her impoverished financial situation are the grounds she relies on for special circumstances to apply. The issue in this case is whether special circumstances caused her to fail the unit of study.

5. There is a three-step process by which special circumstances are determined. All three must be found before special circumstances arise. It follows the Tribunal will only consider the material before it which is relevant to these three steps.

6. For the following reasons, the decision under review is affirmed as the Tribunal has found special circumstances did not apply.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   What happened?

7. Ms Graham was studying a Bachelor of Nursing at QUT. In 2021 she enrolled in a unit of study called ‘Integrated Nursing Practice 3 Off Campus’. That included a two-week placement at a hospital, and she was originally placed at St Vincent’s Private Hospital Northside, however that placement was conditional on her providing evidence she had two COVID-19 vaccinations by a certain date. St Vincent’s is proximate to where she lives.

8. QUT says they did not receive evidence of her vaccination status by the required time and reallocated the placement at St Vincent’s to another student. Later they found a placement for her at Princess Alexandra Hospital (PAH), which is on the southside of Brisbane, and she lives on the northside of Brisbane. The distance between home and St Vincent’s is approximately 5 kilometres and from home to PAH is approximately 17 kilometres.

9. Ms Graham says she was badly treated by her facilitator at the PAH. She claims she was subjected to lies, degrading and devaluing behaviour and conduct, and bullying by her facilitator. She also claims it was a logistical nightmare for her to get to and from the PAH and her home, and her impoverished financial position made the experience all the worse. She says for these reasons she failed the unit.

10. Ms Graham initially applied for a withdrawal from the unit without both academic and financial penalty. As the Tribunal understands the facts, that did not occur, resulting in a HECS-HELP debt.

11. These issues described above are the basis for her claim that special circumstances should apply to remit the HECS debt.[1] QUT disagrees. The Secretary set out their position in an amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 2 April 2024 (RSFIC). Ms Graham responded to that on or around 9 April 2024 (ASFIC).

    [1] HECS-HELP is assistance provided by the Commonwealth to meet a student's liability to pay student contribution amounts for units of study that are Commonwealth supported.

12. Under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (Act), a student may be entitled to HECS-HELP assistance for Commonwealth supported units of study if certain requirements are met. The amount of assistance to which the student may be entitled is based on the student’s contribution amounts for the units, less any up-front payments. The assistance is paid to a higher education provider to discharge the student’s liability to pay their student contribution amounts.[2] Amounts of such assistance may form part of a person’s HELP debts, which the Commonwealth can recover under Part 4-2 of the Act.

    [2] Section 87-1 of the Act.

13. The Administration Guidelines 2012 (Administration Guidelines) was repealed on 22 March 2022 and replaced by the Higher Education Support (Administration) Guidelines 2022. As such, the Administration Guidelines registered on 08 December 2011 was in force in 2021 when Ms Graham was studying at QUT and are referred to in the RSFIC.

14. If a person’s HELP loan limit exceeds the sum of various amounts of assistance, including HECS-HELP, that has previously been payable for them, their HELP balance is reduced by any amounts previously re-credited to them.[3]

    [3] Section 128-15 of the Act.

15. The term ‘Census date’ is relevant to this decision and is defined in Schedule 1 of the Act. If the student undertaking the unit has not accessed it through Open Universities Australia (Ms Graham was studying at QUT, which is not an Open University) the census date for a unit of study for a year means the date determined under subsection 169-25(1) of the Act.

16. That section says a higher education provider must, for each unit of study it provides or proposes to provide during a period ascertained in accordance with the Administration Guidelines, determine a particular date to be the census date for the unit, and the equivalent full-time student load value for the unit.

17. The Administration Guidelines says the census date must not be a date that falls less than 20 per cent of the time between the commencement and completion dates for the unit of study or accelerator program course. As pointed out in the RSFIC, the census date determined by QUT for semester 2 of 2021 was 20 August 2021.

    Special circumstances

18. The reviewable decision was made under section 36-20 of the Act,[4] which contemplates repayment to both the Commonwealth and the student for the amounts paid by each for the unit of study. Section 97-25 of the Act contemplates re-crediting of amounts of HECS‑HELP assistance that a person received for a unit of study. Both sections are predicated on the application of special circumstances as defined in section 36-21 of the Act. There is no evidence that Ms Graham paid out of her own pocket any contribution to the unit of study at QUT. Rather, her contribution was added to her HECS-HELP account, and thus, section 97-25 applies.

    [4] Section 37 ‘T’ Documents, T10, page 105.

19. Section 97-23 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which a person’s HELP balance is to be re-credited with an amount equal to the amounts of HECS-HELP assistance that person has received for a unit of study.

20. A higher education provider must re-credit a person’s HELP balance with an amount equal to the amounts of HECS-HELP assistance the person received for a unit of study if the person has been enrolled in the unit with the provider, the person has not completed the requirements for the unit during the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit and the provider is satisfied that special circumstances apply to the person.[5]

    [5] Section 97-25(2)(a) to (c).

21. The person must apply in writing to the provider for re-crediting of the HELP balance; and the application must be made before the end of the application period. The provider can waive the requirement for the application to be made before the end of that period on the ground that it would not be, or was not, possible for the application to be made before the end of that period.[6]

    [6] Section 97-25(2)(d) to (e).

22. Special circumstances can apply to the person if, and only if, the higher education provider receiving the application is satisfied that circumstances apply to the person that:[7]

    (a)are beyond the person’s control; and

    (b)do not make their full impact on the person until on or after the census date for the unit of study in question; and

    (c)make it impracticable for the person to complete the requirements for the unit in the period during which the person undertook, or was to undertake, the unit.

    [7] Section 97-30(1)

23. It is important to note all three of the above circumstances must be present for special circumstances to apply.

    What does Ms Graham say?

24. Ms Graham is adamant the circumstances causing her to fail the Integrated Nursing Practice 3 Off Campus unit of study were special and QUT must re-credit the HECS-HELP assistance she received from the Commonwealth for it.

25. In her application to the Tribunal for review of the decision of QUT (on behalf of the Secretary) she states her reasons as (errors in original):[8]

    I wish to request a review of the decision made by QUT; because there are only certain grounds that you can request within the framework of QUT. I exhausted all available avenues, even went to the QUT Student Guild, QUT Ombudsman’s office three times for policies and processes that were not adhered to, followed. I went to the Minister of Health/office and also my local office as it was the QLD Health PA staff who marked and submitted the document to QUT (not the facilitator stated: ‘my English is not good enough’ to mark the form). Therefore I have continually asked PA Hospital for the person’s name and why they continue to mark the form/document under lies, misleading and deceiving comments; this has not been forth coming (the facilitator demeaning, degrading, devaluing, discrimination, and belittling behaviour through the placement as a student stated she only wants to see what she wants to see (Jess) (QUT was aware of intimidation/bullying and stated that they could not do anything as she was not QUT staff, but she was QUT staff). The PA staff/QLD health continued to mark under the facilitators lies, misleading and deceptive comments/information), knowing as I question the facilitator in front of her I stated why are you lying, the facilitators stated ‘stop looking at me’. I would like to submit attachments indicating some of the work and my answers to the ANSAT form/document. I was failed by the facilitator and PA staff, she wanted me to continue working and I was failed, I said no (I believe it’s slave labour/no insurance and I had failed, the facilitator keep bullying and yet still wants me to keep working for free. The facilitator has been previously reprimanded for her behaviour/bullying (RN PA hospital staff knew about this). Throughout the placement there have been threats/intimidation (starting on the third day) that “as I can fail you”, also her annatotal notes/not learning contract seem to be cut and pasted from another students placement and did not apply to the situation that I was in, there were also lies about this, and also PA hospital said I failed you the first week but the way it was done told ‘me to keep working’. I stated no I been failed Im going home, she has made a false allegations, so I’m not able to be passed but want to continue to work for free… (Please see attachments)

    [8] Section 37 ‘T’ Documents, T1, page 2.

26. Her reasons are set out in the ASFIC and were given orally under oath at the hearing. They include:

    (a)she should have been allowed to retain her place at St Vincent’s because she had received two COVID-19 vaccinations by the required time, and she says she provided evidence of that to QUT in time.

    (b)it was impractical for her to attend PAH due to the distance she was required to travel, and the difficult public transport logistics involved in her doing so.

    (c)she was bullied by her facilitator at PAH which made it even more difficult for her to competently complete the tasks she was set while she was there.

    (d)she is financially disadvantaged.

    Placement at St Vincent’s

27. Ms Graham says the placement at St Vincent’s would have suited her well as it is close to her home and getting to and from there would not have been an issue. She says she lost her placement at St Vincent’s because QUT claim she did not provide with them with evidence of having two COVID-19 vaccinations.

28. She said multiple times during the hearing, and in her written evidence, she was ‘not good with computers’. If that is so, the Tribunal finds it strange she did not rectify that shortcoming in her skills before undertaking nursing given such study is so reliant on having such a skill and being able to readily make and receive electronic communications. The agreement she accepted on enrolling at QUT specified communications would be by electronic means. QUT provides an online portal for uploading documents.

29. Evidence of having the requisite vaccinations was to be uploaded via the QUT portal by 13 September 2021, which had been extended from 10 September 2021. Following the hearing, Ms Graham provided to the Tribunal a photo of a document which appears to be a copy of such evidence by e-mail dated 23 February 2024. The document is from Medicare and dated 12 August 2021 for ‘LOUISE GRAHAM-MICETT’ and bears the title ‘Immunisation history statement’. It says: ‘This individual has received all required COVID-19 vaccines.’ and ‘No vaccines are due.’ The COVID-19 vaccines are described as ‘Pfizer Comirnaty’ and dated 19 July 2021 and 9 August 2021. The Tribunal finds Ms Graham did have the required COVID-19 vaccinations by 12 August 2021.

30. She says she sent a copy of this certificate by e-mail to a person whose name she could not remember in WILS (Work Integrated Learning) before the due date. She was unable to provide evidence, such as a copy of that e-mail, proving her assertion. She also said she no longer had access to her QUT Connect e-mails. The Tribunal notes the e-mail address used to send the certificate post-hearing was her personal e-mail, not her university e-mail.

31. The Tribunal called on the Respondent to requisition all e-mails to and from Ms Graham using her QUT Connect e-mail account to locate the e-mail she says she sent to someone in WILS. That search was not fruitful. The Tribunal has searched the copies of e-mails produced by that search and was unable to locate such an e-mail. Ms Graham made no submission identifying such an e-mail.

32. In her Amended SFIC (undated), Ms Graham says on page 14:

    3. On or around 6 July 2021, the applicant providing COVID-19 vaccination had been done; phoned Wils to say vaccines completed and keep following information is up to date.

33. The Medicare vaccination certificate referred to above is dated 12 August 2021. No other certificate was provided so the Tribunal cannot assess whatever Ms Graham provided to WILS on or about 6 July 2021 and in any event, the Medicare certificate shows the first COVID-19 vaccination occurred on 19 July 2021, that is, 13 days after she says she provided information about her COVID-19 vaccination to WILS. Further, she says she phoned WILS however that does not mean she provided a copy as required.

    Travel to PAH

34. Had Ms Graham uploaded via the student portal or sent a copy by e-mail of the Medicare certificate showing her vaccination status by the required time she would have retained her place at St Vincent’s. Ms Graham says it was unreasonable to place her at PAH due to the distance and transport logistics involved. The Tribunal finds that strange because in her e-mail to Nursing Placements on 4 July 2021, she had nominated PAH as a suitable placement. She said (errors in original):[9]

    It is too far [a reference to potential placements at hospitals south of Brisbane, such as, Logan and Inala], if it was at the PA hospital that would be fine (metro south);

    I dont want metro North, from what I have experienced.

    [9] Further bundle of e-mails, page 92.

35. During the course of writing this decision, the Tribunal conducted an online check of the Translink site.[10] Noting the time of the placement at PAH was almost three years ago and timetables almost certainly would have changed since then, nonetheless, the current timetables suggest a travel time of 1 hour 4 minutes from the railway station closest to Ms Graham’s home to the PAH, including walking time at either end of the journey, to arrive at 6:00 am on a weekday.

    [10] See: >

    Ms Graham says the journey from her home to PAH took three hours however that appears to be travelling by road bike.[11] Throughout her submissions, she also asserts there was a security issue for her in catching a train from Zillmere station before 5:00 am however she provided no supporting evidence of that.

    [11] T5, page 46.

36. The Tribunal finds the placement at PAH was not an obstacle to Ms Graham successfully completing her unit of study due to transport issues because not two months earlier she had said the PAH would be fine and the best information before the Tribunal is the commuting time each way was little more than one hour and less than 90 minutes.

    Facilitator issues

37. Set out above is an extract from the review application lodged by Ms Graham in which she says: ‘the facilitator demeaning, degrading, devaluing, discrimination, and belittling behaviour through the placement’.

38. In her original SFIC (dated around 23 November 2023) Ms Graham says:

    Another incident was with abuse, physical assault, was that the facilitator grabbed and pulled my arm and that it hurt (it was bad), and that the facilitator acted in a way was like a dictator, and continually threatening me and stating along the lines of: “I’m going to fail you, and I can fail you from the first day; also about not knowing my anatomy and physiology, than after, continue to threaten, I can fail you, your [you’re] going to fil [fail], I told QUT, I told them she was like a dictator, with psychotic traits and I cringe ever day… where the facilitator deliberately took me away and did not expect that I took had written notes and was able to give the vital signs that I took back to her, its deliberately done and looks like I do little when I’m doing my duties as a student nurse and what is being expected; I couldn’t make a complaint as the facilitator was not on the system as staff;

39. It is difficult to know what did or did not occur at PAH between Ms Graham and the facilitator as no witnesses were called or witness statements adduced in these proceedings. Whilst Ms Graham identified she was having issues during the two-week placement; she did not say what they were and so did not mention bullying or any other form of inappropriate behaviour at the time. It appears the first time Ms Graham identified bullying behaviour had occurred was after she had been notified that she had failed the unit.

    Financial disadvantage

40. Ms Graham complains she has dire financial issues, and these made it impracticable for her to complete the requirements of the Integrated Nursing Practice 3 Off Campus unit of study.

41. Ms Graham referred to her health issues however she provided no evidence these prevented her from completing the unit. No evidence was provided to indicate she has employment and changes to those arrangements meant she was unable to continue.

1. That leaves financial issues, which she speaks about in detail in her submissions. In an undated and unsigned statutory declaration received by the Tribunal in August 2023 Ms Graham says under a heading ‘Financially in distress due to limited income’ (errors in original):

   I can only afford tin tuna, as it also your skin, because isn't good quality food and limited foods, I can’t afford good food this affect immunity, nutrition, skin and placement affects hands and hand washing and no real aftercare where on other placements hand creams are available, this placement did not. Because I believe the skin is weak (skin degradation) prone to more infections because my nutrition is not good, you do not look well because it is easy to recognize that it is clothes k-mart and I would rather be placed with poorer/disadvantaged people than these rich students and they are rich - wealthy students, that's obvious, and that's setting up to be bullied and harassed by others, you know that you are poor you don't need to be told, it's evident in the clothes you wear, and what you eat.’

   And:

   ‘I have limited finances and property has been stolen whilst I was on placement (bike) As well as fraud on my accounts. The property was a bicycle, and that's what I was going to use as it's my primary means of transportation, I couldn't get an emergency scholarship as I own my house and it was for ‘renters’, that’s what I was told twice, during the request, so I can only access the food bank. I don't have insurance because it's too expensive. I don't have internet because it's too expensive and I don't have a mobile phone because it's too expensive, I can't apply for some scholarships, yet I can't get financial aids because my income is limited. I calculated that my cost of living if I study is approx. $23000 a year to live on (not including house expenses which are now around $11,000+ as I don't have home insurance as I can't afford home insurance, good food, nice clothes, this does not cover any other activity as I can’t afford to participate, I can’t afford to go to the local pool to get a pool pass because it is too expensive, and leads to destitute poverty (extending out my nursing degree and the comments from QUT nursing,) it is creating more financial distress.

2. The above extract makes it clear Ms Graham is a person of limited means and struggling financially. There is no evidence these dire financial circumstances did not exist before Ms Graham commenced the nursing course at QUT. She made no assertion they arose after commencing the Integrated Nursing Practice 3 Off Campus unit of study. Therefore, they were not unforeseen, rather they pre-existed her enrolment in the unit.

3. It is to her credit that Ms Graham enrolled in the nursing course given her impoverished circumstances. However, that means she knew about them beforehand, and they were not unforeseen.

   What does the Respondent say?

4. The course requirements for NSB233 Integrated Nursing Practice 3 Off Campus are set out in the Unit Outline, which was made available to all students including Ms Graham. Importantly, as at 12 October 2023, it says:[12]

   This unit requires attendance at an off-campus clinical placement. Placement opportunities are negotiated by QUT with hospitals and health care facilities, and are finite in number. Students cannot organise their own placements. Students must be available for shift-work rostering which enables patient care to be delivered 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and some clinical placements may occur during semester breaks. Any absence from an off campus clinical placement will reduce the opportunity for competence development, student performance may not be assessed and a grade of 'Unsatisfactory' may be awarded.

   Where absence is due to special or unforeseeable circumstances independently supported by documentation (e.g. medical certificate), every effort will be made to accommodate the student in an alternate placement within the same semester. If due to the nature of the student's special circumstances and/or limited placement availability an alternate placement cannot be negotiated, the student will be advised to seek withdrawal from the unit without academic or financial penalty. Standard course progression cannot be guaranteed following an Unsuccessful grade or withdrawal from a clinical placement unit.

   [12] Section 38AA supplementary ‘T’ Documents, ST3, page 7.

5. For second semester 2021, the unit coordinator for NSB233 Integrated Nursing Practice 3 Off Campus was Ms Kerrie Rodger. A document was produced which sets out various contact details and how the course work will be undertaken and assessed.[13] It says in the following extract:

   ‘Please ensure you ask for regular feedback on your performance (at least weekly) during your placement. If you are on a placement where you are experiencing difficulty getting any formal feedback on your performance or you are experiencing difficulties meeting the objectives of the unit please contact the Unit Coordinator by email k[xxxxxxxxxx]@qut.edu.au’

   [13] ST5.

6. On 10 September 2021, Ms Graham was advised by e-mail from Ms Amy Williams of Nursing Placements she had until Monday 13 September 2021 to provide evidence she was fully vaccinated against COVID-19 for her placement to proceed. Her e-mail reply is from her QUT Connect account and did not occur until Wednesday 15 September 2021, that is, two days late. It attaches an image said to be of her vaccination status and says:[14]

   This is part of my vaccine, need to go home but can you reinstate me with placement, I honestly did not know.

   [14] Section 38AA further supplementary ‘T’ Documents, FSTD8, pages 40-41.

7. Ms Graham asserts she had the Medicare certificate and provided a copy of it to WILS yet could not provide evidence of that so two issues arise out of the above statement. Firstly, and given she was by then two days late and based on the Medicare certificate, which says she had received the two doses of vaccine, why only provide part of the vaccine certificate. Secondly, it cannot be said Ms Graham was not fully informed of the requirement to provide the necessary vaccination certificate before this time, yet she says she honestly did not know. The Tribunal finds that implausible.

8. On 15 September 2021, Ms Williams sent an e-mail in reply to Ms Graham to her QUT Connect account. Ms Williams says:[15]

   The below picture only confirms that you have obtained one dose, you will need to upload evidence of two doses to QUT InPlace.

   She continues:

   The CPR you sent through has also been sent through as a shared document and not an attachment. You will need to upload your CPR evidence to QUT InPlace.

   [15] FSTD8, page 39.

9. It is abundantly clear from this e-mail exchange Ms Graham was on notice of the urgency of providing evidence she was fully vaccinated by 13 September 2021 for her placement (at St Vincent’s) to proceed. The Tribunal understands fully vaccinated means two vaccinations.[16] She did not reply until 15 September 2021 and her reply was unsatisfactory. By which time the placement had been offered to another student.

   [16] Confirmed in an e-mail dated 8 September 2021 from Ms Amy Williams addressed to multiple students. It has the subject line ‘Placement Cancellation Pending 20/09 – COVID-19 Information DUE’: FSTD8, pages 41-42

10. On 20 September 2021, Associate Professor Christina Parker responds to an e-mail from Ms Graham in which she seeks assistance to retain her placement at St Vincent’s. Ms Graham had said:[17]

    … I had not had my covid vaccines, but Carline in Wils knew that I did have my covid, I had not submitted the documentation.

    And later:

    … I am not good with computers …

    [17] FSTD10, pages 46-47.

11. Professor Parker says in her reply:[18]

    As has been previously explained to you, your placement may have been given to a 3rd year student (I’m not sure) but this was due to non-compliance with uploading your documentation and so your placement was given to someone who did meet these requirements.

    And later:

    Digital literacy is an important course theme within nursing and the use of computers and other IT are used widely across nursing. It is important that you take the opportunity to learn these essential skills for your nursing career.

    [18] FSTD10, page 46.

12. Throughout the numerous e-mail exchanges, it is clearly spelled out to Ms Graham she was to upload documents, such as her vaccination certificate, using the InPlace facility.[19] It is no excuse to claim she is not good with computers as she does again in her e-mail of 20 September 2021 to Health WILS in which she says: ‘… you know that Im hopless [I’m hopeless] with computer systems …’. As Professor Parker explains, digital literacy is an important course theme within nursing.

    [19] The Tribunal understands InPlace is an online portal provided to students at QUT to upload documents for processing.

13. Further, by her own admission in her e-mail dated 20 September 2021, she had not submitted the documentation (presumably meaning the COVID-19 vaccination certificate).

14. On 29 October 2021, Ms Graham sent an e-mail to the course coordinator Ms Rodger saying she was having issues with the facilitator without saying what those issues were. Specifically, she made no mention of her later bullying claim.[20] Ms Rodger was on leave at that time and Ms Graham was advised to contact Simona Asomah-Hartl for all NSB233 clinical placement issues or queries, which she did on 3 November 2021.[21] By then the off-campus placement had ended, and on 5 November 2021 Ms Graham finished her placement at PAH,[22] and was advised she had failed the course.[23]

    [20] Further bundle of material, page 83.

    [21] Further bundle of material – part 2, page 84.

    [22] T5, page 62.

    [23] T5, page 66.

15. From then on there was an exchange of e-mails between Ms Graham and A/P Parker in which efforts were made to assist her with the complaints she raised. Ultimately, she requested a deferral of her exam for the unit.

    Grounds for special circumstances

16. There are three grounds for a successful claim for special circumstances as discussed in detail above. All three must be satisfied for a claim to be successful.

    Beyond the person’s control

17. The Tribunal finds:

    (a)Ms Graham failed on or before 13 September 2021 to provide QUT with a copy of the relevant vaccination certificate, because there is no evidence before the Tribunal to support her assertion she did provide it, rather there is evidence she did not, such as her e-mail to A/P Parker dated 20 September 2021 in which she says she had not submitted the documentation,

    (b)it was not beyond Ms Graham’s control to provide the vaccination certificate on time because she had a QUT Connect e-mail account by which she could have sent a copy to WILS if she was unable to upload a copy via the portal, rather it was her inaction in not using the facilities available to her to provide the certificate to WILS by the required date, and not being good with computers is no excuse as she had agreed all communications would be by electronic means, and

    (c)communications by electronic means in 2021 was in no way unusual, uncommon, unexpected, or abnormal.

18. It follows the reallocation of her placement at St Vincent’s away from Ms Graham and to another student was not the fault of QUT and necessitated her placement elsewhere.

    Full impact on or after the census date

19. The Tribunal finds Ms Graham’s financial difficulties were not unforeseen at the time she enrolled in the Integrated Nursing Practice 3 Off Campus unit of study and so cannot be considered as part of special circumstances in this case because:

    (a)by her undated and unsigned affidavit, she was in a distressed financial state before she enrolled in the course, that is, before the census date, and

    (b)the additional costs she incurred after the census date, such as a police certificate, were not in and of themselves substantial, notwithstanding Ms Graham found them so.

    Impractical to complete the unit of study

20. Circumstances which make it impractical to complete the unit of study must be medical, family or personal (including unforeseen financial difficulties), employment issues and course related issues such as a change in the course by the course provider.

21. The Tribunal finds it was not impractical for Ms Graham to complete the unit of study because:

    (a)she did complete the unit of study despite her assertion of the logistical difficulties she experienced,

    (b)the evidence before the Tribunal is that public transport was available for her to travel to and from the PAH inside 90 minutes each way, and

    (c)there is no evidence before the Tribunal or adduced by Ms Graham to suggest she had:

    (i)any medical conditions which changed to an extent she was unable to continue studying,

    (ii)any family or personal circumstances which made it unreasonable to expect her to continue. The Tribunal notes the death of her mother pre-dates this unit of study and understandably was the reason she refused a placement at Prince Charles Hospital, or

    (iii)any employment related issues. The Tribunal understands from her submissions that she receives a disability support pension.

    CONCLUSION

22. Ms Graham produced a photo of a certificate showing she had two COVID-19 vaccinations. That certificate is dated 12 August 2021. To retain her place at St Vincent’s, all she had to do was upload it to the QUT student portal by the required date in September 2021. She is adamant she did provide it however she is not clear when or how she did, and no evidence could be found to substantiate that claim rather she says in an e-mail later she had not provided the documentation. She says she must have or QUT could not have allocated a place to her at any hospital. That may be so, and regardless of when and how her vaccination status was provided to QUT, Ms Graham was provided with a placement in a hospital, PAH.

23. It is common for some employees to travel long distances to their workplace. It is self-evident the travel time and method to the PAH would be less convenient for Ms Graham than it would have been to St Vincent’s, yet she said in an e-mail to Nursing Placement in July 2021 she would be fine with the PAH.

24. She says she was bullied at the PAH, yet she did not report that until after she was notified about failing the unit of study. Bullying is abhorrent and not to be tolerated. It should be reported at the earliest time. Not every person to whom an employee reports in a workplace is a model supervisor and some behaviour may appear as bullying. However, hospitals are busy places where patient treatment is paramount, and tempers can become frayed while getting that treatment done. What can seem like bullying to one person may be shrugged off by another.

25. Ms Graham spoke many times of her impoverished circumstances which precluded her from having home internet access and a mobile phone, and which she knew before she enrolled in the nursing course at QUT. She said she was reliant on the library at QUT, and local libraries, for internet access to enable her to study and that was difficult enough until COVID-19 lockdowns came along and restricted her access to those facilities. She understandably wanted to get her course finished in the shortest time, yet maybe her impoverished circumstances simply could not accommodate that. She could have considered studying part-time or deferring until she had the funds for home internet access and a mobile phone, both of which are imperatives for tertiary study.

26. She said at the hearing and subsequently she is not good with computers. The Tribunal considers it is fundamental to success in tertiary study in the 21st century to be computer literate (certainly also for secondary study and probably also for primary study). There are courses available to help her lift her computer skills. She said she was not good with dates. Knowing that she could have maintained a written diary to assist her. There are always alternatives to reach an outcome. If one path is blocked, go down another.

27. The circumstances of Ms Graham whilst difficult are not special.

    DECISION

28. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 70 (seventy) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Ranson

...................[SGD]......................
Associate

Dated: 1 July 2024

Date of hearing:

19 January 2024

Date of final submissions:

3 April 2024

Applicant:

Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent:

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers