Greenfield Education Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

[2017] AATA 1418

Greenfield Education Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2017] AATA 1418 (7 September 2017)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2017/4435; 2017/4487; 2017/4732

Re:Greenfield Education Pty Ltd

APPLICANT

AndAustralian Skills Quality Authority

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President B W Rayment 

Date:7 September 2017  

Place:Sydney

The Applications pursuant to section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 for an extension of time within which to lodge applications for review in relation to matters 2017/4435, 2017/4487 and 2017/4732, are refused.

............................[sgd]............................................

Deputy President B W Rayment

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – applications for extension of time to apply for review – explanation for the delay – alleged issues of construction informing reviewable decision – applicant entitled to lodge fresh application with the respondent – applications refused

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 29(7)

National Vocational Education and Training regulatory Act 2011, s 22(1)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President B W Rayment

7 September 2017

1. This is an application made pursuant to s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act) for an extension of time for the making by the applicant of an application for review of three decisions made by the respondent under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (the Act). The Tribunal may make such an order if it is satisfied that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so. 

   Application no. 2017/4732

2. As to one of the three decisions, the application should be rejected at once. The reviewable decision in that case relates to a reduction of the scope of the applicant’s registration by the removal of courses in TAE40110 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment with effect from 12 July 2017. The registration will expire in any event by 5 October 2017 in accordance with a statement of general application made by the respondent on 28 April 2017.  The applicant has no current students seeking such a qualification.  Any application for review brought forward today would be unlikely to be heard and determined by the Tribunal before 5 October 2017. That application for extension of time is refused.

   Application nos. 2017/4435 and 2017/4487

3. I turn to the other two applications, which relate to the refusal by the respondent to allow the scope of the registration of the applicant to be amended to include six new VET courses (a decision notified to the applicant on 15 February 2017) and a subsequent refusal by the respondent (notified on 7 June 2017) to allow the scope of the applicant’s registration to be changed by adding two other VET courses.

4. The applicant sought to explain the delay in making the applications by the evidence of its Executive Officer to the effect that during the time limited for an application  (that is, within 28 days of the notification of the reviewable decisions) it took the view that the respondent’s decisions were correct, because it had previously found decisions made by the respondent to be correct, but that in the course of a subsequent detailed internal review of the matter, it came to the view that the matter ought to be brought before the Tribunal.  The witness was not cross-examined upon that evidence and as a matter of fact, I accept it.  Whether it is a satisfactory explanation for the delay is another matter.

5. If there were no other reason to grant this application, I would regard the explanation proffered by the applicant as an insufficient ground to make an order extending time. The time limits for bringing an application for review to the Tribunal are specified in s 29(2) of the AAT Act and were clearly notified to the applicant. The evidence which it led contained no suggestion that it was prevented from examining the question whether it should apply for review during the time allowed by s 29(2) and its failure to do so until after the time expired would not ordinarily be a good reason to extend time.

6. The application was opened by Ms Lam, who appeared for the applicant, on the basis that the reviewable decisions gave rise to questions of normative importance in that it related to the alleged erroneous construction by the respondent of the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations referred to in s 22(1) of the Act.  Ms Lam also submitted that if the applicant applied again to the respondent it would likely be met with a similar response from the respondent. 

7. The case desired to be made if an application were now to be brought forward did not appear to me to have normative importance.  It involved questions of fact determined by the auditor and alleged issues of construction of the standards which seemed to me to have no good arguable basis.

8. The applicant is not precluded from making further applications to the respondent and may, if it wishes, remedy the matters drawn to attention by the regulator before doing so.

9. I am not satisfied that it is reasonable in the circumstances of any of these matters to grant an extension of time within which to lodge applications for review.  The applications are therefore refused.

I certify that the preceding 9 (nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President B W Rayment 

..........................[sgd]..............................................

Associate

Dated: 7 September 2017

Date(s) of hearing:	5 September 2017
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Ms C Lam, Lam Partners Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr A Grullemans, Australian Skills Quality Authority