Neupane and Australia Skills Quality Authority
[2024] ARTA 959
•17 October 2024
Neupane and Australia Skills Quality Authority [2024] ARTA 959 (17 October 2024)
Administrative Review Tribunal
Applicant/s: Sandhya Neupane
Respondent: Australia Skills Quality Authority
Tribunal Number: 2024/11286
Tribunal:Senior Member M. Harrowell
Place:Sydney
Date:17 October 2024
Corrigendum
Date of Corrigendum: 28 October 2025
Pursuant to section 114 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, the following alterations are made to the decision and reasons for decision]:
The words ‘2024’ on page 1, the cover page, are to be changed to ‘2025’.
The words ‘IV’ in paragraphs [2], [5], and [70(a)] is removed.
.............................SGD......................................
Senior Member M. Harrowell
Decision and Reasons for Decision
Applicant/s: Sandhya Neupane
Respondent: Australia Skills Quality Authority
Tribunal Number: 2024/11286
Tribunal: Senior Member M. Harrowell
Place: Sydney
Date: 17 October 2024
Decision: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........................[SGD]................................................
Senior Member M. Harrowell
Catchwords
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Vocational Education and Training – cancellation of registered training organisation’s registration –- whether qualification properly issued to student – whether qualification of student should be cancelled under s 56 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)-decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)
Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTO’s) 2015
Cases
Nil
Secondary Materials
Nil
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
Gills College Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Elite College Australia (College) was a registered training organisation (RTO) under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (NVR Act).
On 23 July 2023 the Applicant was issued with a CHC33015 Certificate IV III in Individual Support (Ageing, Disability, Home and Community) (Qualification) by the College.1 The certificate was said to be based on competency achieved in various subjects said to have formed part of the Qualification. Those subjects are listed on page 2 of the Qualification and are recorded in Annexure A to these reasons (Transcript).
1 SB 37
The Qualification was issued following:
(a)the payment of a fee of $1500 to an organisation identified as Global Education Institute (Global),
(b)the Applicant attending a campus operated by Global in Campsie, a suburb of Sydney, and
(c)the Applicant participating in a student outplacement program with a care provider as part of activities said to constitute training for the award of the Qualification.
What occurred in connection with the Applicant attending Global, attending the outplacement program and obtaining the Qualification is set out below.
In 2024, the respondent, Australian Skills Quality Authority (respondent/ASQA) conducted an audit of the College, including of course CHC33015 Certificate IV III in Individual Support (Ageing, Disability, Home and Community).
In the course of investigations by the respondent, the College applied to withdraw its registration under the NVR Act and as a registered provider under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) (ESOS Act).
Despite the application to withdraw its registration, on 24 October 2024, the respondent gave notice to the College of its intention to take action against the College. Then, on 20 November 2024, the respondent decided to cancel the College’s registration from 21 November 2024 (College Cancellation Decision).
By notice dated 26 November 2024, the respondent gave notice to the Applicant under s 57 of the NVR Act that it proposed to cancel the Qualification.
On 13 December 2024, the respondent decided to cancel the Qualification and provided reasons (Cancellation Decision). The decision was:
Cancel, under sections 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(d) of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, the following VET Qualifications and/or Statements of Attainment issued to the former student by Gills College Australia Ply Lid (RTO ID 2417, trading as Elite College Australia and/or Stirling Business College) (Gills College).
Qualifications
CHC33015 Certificate Ill in Individual Support
By application lodged with the Tribunal on 6 January 2025, the Applicant applied for review of the Cancellation Decision (Review Application). As to why the decision was wrong, the Applicant said in the Review Application:
I believe the decision to cancel my Certificate III in Individual Support from Gills College is incorrect because I have fully met all the requirements of the course. I successfully completed my work placement at Bayswater Gardens in Wynyard, where I worked with experienced staff, received positive feedback, and was even offered a reference from a Registered Nurse. Additionally, I completed all the required assessments and submitted them according to the college’s instructions. I also attended all necessary training sessions, including first aid. Despite my efforts, the college has not provided clear answers and has unfairly cancelled my certificate. This decision has caused significant stress and impacted my career plans. I request a review of this decision, as I have fulfilled all obligations for the course and earned my certificate through hard work and dedication.
CANCELLATION DECISION
In cancelling the Qualification, ASQA provided the following reasons:
Summary of issues relevant to the decision
2. ASQA has cancelled the registration of Gills College because it Is satisfied that:
a) Gills College did not Implement a training and assessment strategy to enable each student to meet the requirements for each unit of competency in which they were enrolled.
b) Gills College did not have sufficient facilities, whether physical or virtual, and equipment to accommodate and support the number of learners undertaking the training and assessment at each delivery location.
c) Gills College did not demonstrate It had a system in place to ensure all trainers and assessors were suitable qualified or experienced.
d) Gills College did not Implement an assessment system that ensured assessment complied with the requirements of the relevant training package and Is conducted In accordance with the principles of assessment and rules or evidence.
e) Gills College did not conduct adequate assessment or ensure that only students who have fully demonstrated competence against all training package requirements have been Issued with certification and captured consistent and accurate information about students and training outcomes.
In addition:
f) Students or Gills College had Ileen issued certification via recognition of prior leaning (RPL) although the provider denied having conducted any RPL assessment during the period of Issuance.
g) Students denied they had studied with the provider at all, although the provider’s student management system said it had issued certification to the students.
h) Students at Gills College completed qualifications via RPL and said they had not attended classes or undertaken a work placement and were told by the provider it was not necessary to attend the classes.
3. Based on these findings, which were evident during the period in which the student undertook training with Gills College, ASQA is satisfied that Gills College did not provide the student with the training or assessment necessary for them to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for the qualification(s) and/or statement(s) of attainment issued.
4. ASQA provided all students with an opportunity to respond. The student did not provide a response to ASQA, within the specified timeframe.
5. This decision reflects the risks posed to industry and the community by the person possessing VET Qualifications or Statements of Attainment for which they have not been assessed as having achieved the required learning outcomes and competencies.
Considerations relevant to the decision
6. Under section 58(1) of the NVR Act, after considering any response received within the period specified, if ASQA still considers that the VET Qualification or VET Statements of Attainment should be cancelled, ASQA must cancel the qualification or statement.
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
The proceedings were heard on 29 and 30 September 2025.
The Applicant represented herself. Ms Roberts of Counsel, instructed by Clayton Utz, appeared for the respondent.
Directions were made by the Tribunal concerning preparation for hearing. The parties provided the following documents:
(d)Hearing Bundle (hearing bundle/HB);
(e)Supplementary Hearing Bundle (supplementary bundle/SB);
(f)Further Supplementary Bundle (further supplementary bundle/FSB); and
(g)Chronology (Chronology).
The hearing bundle included a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFICS) provided by the respondent and documents relied upon by the applicant.
The hearing bundle also included the following witness statements for the respondent:
(a)Ms Lea Stevenson (Acting Assistant Director of Compliance and Enforcement – ASQA) dated 27 June 25 – HB 323 and following;
(b)Second statement of Ms Stevenson dated 28 August 2025 – SB 8 and following;
(c)Mr S Kapur (former Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer of the College) dated 30 June 2025 – HB 327 and following;
(d)Mr M Broere (Assistant Director of Risk Analytics and Data Intelligence – ASQA) dated 26 June 2025 – HB 312 and following.
The Applicant did not provide a written statement but was permitted to give oral evidence and was cross examined by Counsel for the respondent.
Oral evidence was also provided by the respondent’s witnesses, the Applicant being given an opportunity to cross examine these witnesses.
During the hearing, the following additional documents were provided:
(a)From the respondent: Exhibit A – a Second Further Bundle of Documents (SFBD) containing:
(i)a copy of the Standards for Vet Accredited Courses 2021 (2021 Standard) made under s 188(1) of the NVR Act;
(ii)five Australian Government documents relating to units of study listed in the Qualification in the form required by the 2021 Standard, being for units CHCDIS001, HLTAID011, CHCCCS011, CHCCCS023 and CHCDIS007;
and
a document entitled “CHC Community Services Training Package V 9.0.
(b)from the Applicant: photographs of a Facebook page and another document recording details about Global. This document was not marked as an exhibit during the course of the proceedings. However, for identification purposes it will be marked Exhibit B. It was referred to during the oral evidence of the applicant.
Finally, during the hearing, at the request of the Tribunal, the respondent provided to the Tribunal and the applicant a document entitled “Respondent’s Closing Submissions”. The applicant also provided a written submission in support of her position to the Tribunal and the respondent.
Applicant’s evidence
The Applicant’s evidence can be summarised as follows.
(a)Ms Neupane is Nepalese. She arrived in Australia on a student visa in about 2022.
(b)She wished to work in the Aged Care industry. She was told that Global offered a course in Aging and Disability and said she attended its campus in Campsie.
(c)Ms Neupane provided to Global her passport and some other documents to support application, stating to the Tribunal she made her application in May 2023. Having obtained a Unique Student Identifier number (USI), on 15 May 2023 she paid a fee of $1500 to Global and was issued with a receipt.2
(d)She recalls attending the campus at Campsie on two occasions. There she did a course in First Aid and a course in Manual Handling. There were separate teachers for each course, but the applicant cannot remember their names. In this regard, the applicant was cross examined about the email date 29 May 2023 from Global suggesting that both courses occurred on one day, namely 1 June 2023.3
(e)Of the First Aid course, the Applicant said she was required to perform CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). She did use an adult sized mannequin to perform CPR. She did not use other medical devices. She also said she submitted a handwritten assessment following the training. She received a call from someone
2 FSB 4
3 HB 52
from Global after she commenced her out placement to say she had passed this course.
(f)Of the Manual Handling course, this was a 7 hour course. The Applicant says she was shown equipment and dealt with topics such as how to deal with accidents and how to use equipment correctly. There were no simulation/make-believe scenarios nor was there any explanation of laws relevant to operating in the industry.
(g)Her external placement at a care facility was completed over a 10 day period, Monday to Friday. A total of approximately 80 hours was worked. She worked with residents with dementia. The first day involved orientation. Thereafter she undertook tasks such as changing bedlinen and patient management such as placing residents in chairs. During all this time she was supervised by an assistant in nursing. A handwritten logbook of activities was kept and was submitted to Global on 3 July 2023. Neither the original logbook, nor a copy of the logbook was available to the Tribunal.
(h)Aside from the above, there were no other assessments which the applicant undertook. The out placement provider did not provide any report to Global about the Applicant’s work during out placement and/or whether that work was performed satisfactorily.
(i)After completing the above, the Applicant attended the Campsie campus in person to collect the Qualification from Global. She saw the document was entitled “Elite College Australia” but did not make any enquiries about this matter.
(j)As to the subjects listed in her Qualification, she said she was not asked to make selections concerning any elective subjects, and did not discuss any subjects other than First Aid and Manual Handling. There was no discussion regarding sub- specialties within the areas of study.
(k)The applicant did not attend the College’s Campus at Hornsby. The Applicant was not aware of the College or its role until enquiries were made of her by the respondent.
The Applicant was cross examined about curriculum documents in relation to particular units of study found in the supplementary bundle. These were CHCLEG001 Work legally
and ethically and HLTAAP001 Recognise healthy body systems.4 As will be evident from the Transcript, these were two of the units of study forming part of the Qualification to have passed and achieved “competency”.
In relation to the unit of study entitled HLTAAP001 Recognise healthy body systems, the Applicant said that she recalls there were discussion about the lymphatic system, respiratory system and the digestive system (being topics identified at SB 34), but she could not recall the detail of what was discussed. However, it was clear from her evidence that to the extent there was any discussion about these matters, they were limited to what occurred when she attended the Campsie campus of Global on one of the two days identified above, being the days she undertook the First Aid and Manual Handling training. The Applicant ‘s evidence did not suggest the matters raised in this unit were the subject of discussions during her out placement with the aged care provider. There was no evidence of any assessment in relation to this particular unit of study.
Respondent’s evidence
The evidence from the respondent’s witnesses can be summarised as follows.
Mr Broere
Mr Broere gave evidence concerning his work examining the records of the College concerning students, their attendance at the College and the qualification is issued.
His evidence can be summarised as follows:
(a)The College operated two student management systems in 2023 and 2024. These were known as “aXcelerate” and “WeWorkBook”. aXcelerate was the system nominated by the College with ASQA. WeWorkBook was a system of which ASQA subsequently became aware and in which the records relating to the applicant were kept.
(b)The WeWorkBook records relating to the Applicant are found at HB 153 and following. They indicate:
4 SP 24 and following
(iv)all course information was updated on the same day, namely 12 July 2023;
(v)the User ID of the person making those entries was associated with Dr Gill, the principal of the College.
(vi)It is probable that the data was “batched” and entered into the system at one time.
(vii)The codes assigned indicated that training had occurred and a pass achieved.
(viii)It does not appear there were any entries prior to 12 July 2023, although Mr Broere could not explain why there was an entry date recorded as 22 November 2022 for the applicant5 .
Ms Stevenson
Ms Stevenson was responsible for the compliance audit of the College.
In relation to her investigations and examination of the records of the College, including WeWorkBook, Ms Stevenson reached the following conclusions:6
Findings about Gills College's training and assessment strategies
26. Based on the student data obtained, under section 62 of the NVR Act, from the provider's secondary student management system WeWorkBook, students across Australia were issued with AQF certification and/or Statements of Attainment. However, Gills College only had registered delivery locations in three states, Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales ASQA also assessed that there were deficiencies in the resources available at the delivery locations to deliver the sampled training products. If there are inadequate facilities available, an RTO cannot provide adequate training and assessment to students and the student is not able to meet the requirements of the unit of competency.
27. In relation to Gills College's assessment ASQA found there were issues with the authenticity of assessment documentation and inadequate assessment across each of the four training products sampled.
In relation to Global, it was not a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) for the purpose of the NVR Act, nor was it registered under the ESOS Act.
5 see HB 153 entry "AC”
6 Stevenson statement dated 27 June 2025, paragraph 26-27 – HB 328
Where courses are conducted by an RTO, the RTO would be expected to have a training and assessment strategy (TAS) setting out how each unit of competency relating to a qualification is to be delivered7.
Insofar as Global provided services to students of the College, Ms Stevenson was not aware of any written agreement between Global and the College required in order for such services to be provided to an RTO by third party provider.
Mr Kapur
Mr Kapur was formerly the Chief Operations Officer and then Chief Executive Officer of the College, having commenced with the College in about August 2023.
In his statement, he describes his role in the following terms:8
6. In my role as Head of Operations at Gills College, I was responsible for looking after Gills College's training materials, including the training and assessment strategy (TAS) and trainer validations. I identified many gaps in the training materials which were not in accordance with the requirements for RTOs. I worked tirelessly to get the materials up to speed.
7. Following my appointment as CEO of Gills College in November 2023, I also became responsible for:
(a) trainer recruitment;
(b) management of Gills College's training campus in Perth and all of Gills College's automotive workshops in Sydney, wherein Perth and Adelaide were hired workshops by Gills for Training;
(c) ensuring Gills College's compliance with the requirements under the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015;
(d) monitoring students' enrolments against the relevant requirements of student visas and the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act).
His evidence was to the effect that he was not aware of the WeWorkBook system. Mr Kapur said he understood the College operated the aXcelerate system and only became aware of the WeWorkBook system when the College was being audited by the respondent.
7 27 June 2025 at [20] and following – HB 326
8 HB 331 at [6]-[7] this
As to courses offered by the College of the time he commenced, Mr Kapur gave the following evidence:9
Training products offered by Gills College
27. In my roles as and to discharge my responsibilities as Head of Operations and then as CEO, I was required to be familiar with the composition of Gills College's student cohort and with aXcelerate. Based on my employment and my access to information on Sharepoint and aXcelerate, and subject to paragraph 28 below, I believed (and believe) Gills College only delivered courses in:
(a) mechanical automotive qualifications under the Automotive Retail, Service and Repair Training Package;
(b) hospitality qualifications under the Tourism, Travel and Hospitality Training Package; and
(c) business qualifications under the Business Services Training Package.
28. I recall that when I first commenced at Gills College, there were a few students completing qualifications in information technology under the ICT Information and Communications Technology Training Package (IT Training Package). From around October 2023, Gills College stopped delivering courses under the IT Training Package, as the last of the students had completed their qualifications.
In oral evidence, Mr Kapur said there were no “CHC packages”, being courses of the type for which the applicant was issued the Qualification at the time he commenced. He had been told by existing employees of the College that such courses had previously been conducted by the College but this was no longer occurring. The courses had not been removed from ASQAnet, being the online information portal of the respondent. This was apparently due to some technical issues relevant to amending the portal information.
In relation to the previous CHC courses, Mr Kapur said courses had been run in Adelaide by the College but had since ceased.
In relation to Global, Mr Kapur was unaware of this organisation or of any contract between Global and the College to provide third-party training for students of the College.
Other matters
I should note at this point that summonses were issued by the Tribunal at request of the parties, including to the College and Global.
9 Kapur statement [27]-[28] – HB 334
The summons issued to the College was in the following terms:
1All documents relating to the delivery of the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support to Sandhya Neupane, (DOB 22 August 2000), student ID number 451744, including:
(a)all communication between Gills College and Sandhya Neupane;
(b)student enrolment information;
(c)recognition of prior learning kits completed by Sandhya Neupane;
(d)all records of training delivered to Sandhya Neupane, including any online training or assignments;
(e)all records relating to vocational work placements completed by Sandhya Neupane (if any);
(f)all records of assessment against the units of competency comprising the Certificate conducted in relation to Sandhya Neupane, including any assessment using recognition of prior learning.
2Any document relating to the training and assessment strategy for the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support. This
3Any document relating to assessors for the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support training product.
The summons issued to Global was in the following terms:
1. All documents relating to any work placements completed by Sandhya Neupane, (DOB 22 August 2000, student ID number 45174) as part of training and assessment for a CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support including:
(a)all communication between GEI College Australia and Sandhya Neupane;
(b)log books;
(c)records of assessment against the units of competency comprising the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support;
(d)documents recording details of any assessors who assessed Sandhya Neupane against the units of competency comprising the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support; and
(e)documents recording details of any supervisors who supervised Sandhya Neupane.
As far as I am aware, no documents were produced by the College or Global. Further, no steps to enforce the summonses were taken by the parties nor does it appear any enquiries were made by the parties regarding non-production by the College or Global.
Neither party summonsed the principal of the College, Dr Gill, to give evidence nor did parties seek to summons a representative of Global.
No searches were provided in connection with Global.
CONSIDERATION
In its SFICS, the respondent said there were three issues to resolve:10
49.1. Is the Tribunal satisfied on reasonable grounds that Gills College did not provide, or arrange for another person to provide, all or part of the assessment necessary for the Applicant to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for the Certificate III qualification issued to the Applicant by Gills College on or about 12 July 2023?
49.2. Is the Tribunal satisfied on reasonable grounds that it is appropriate to cancel the Applicant’s Gills College qualification, in all the circumstances, because of action the Regulator has taken, or is taking, in relation to Gills College in respect of the courses to which this qualification relates?
49.3. Should the Tribunal cancel the Applicant’s Gills College qualification, or notwithstanding its satisfaction that it is appropriate to cancel that qualification, should it not do so in the exercise of its discretion?
In the Respondent’s Closing Submissions, it said that “it is plain that [Global] did not provide the training or assessment required for Certificate III in the Individual Support to the Applicant”.
Of the evidence of the applicant, the respondent provided the following written submission:11
…, the effect of materials the Applicant produced (including some very shortly before the hearing, in the Further Supplementary Bundle), together with her oral evidence, included that: a friend placed the Applicant in touch with GEI – she then attended its Campsie premises, where she was given a print out of a Facebook profile belonging to “Sami Adhikari” with the words “send friend request and message and talk for job vacancy and reference” handwritten on it in red pen; the Applicant was not involved in the selection of electives; the Applicant did not discuss the requirements of the 18 units she was awarded with any person; the Applicant appeared to be unaware that she had been awarded three-separate sub-specialisations; the Applicant had no direct contact with Gills College at all and never attended its premises (as above); the Applicant paid GEI $1,500 for her qualification17 (it is unclear what proportion, if any, of this was remitted to Gills); the Applicant attended a first aid course, and a course on manual handling (which were either on the same day or two separate days – Ms Neupane could not remember),18 at GEI College in Camspie, and no other classes;19 the Applicant completed one handwritten assessment following her first aid course (which she has not retained a copy of), and no other assessment; the Applicant applied and then was granted her certificate within a 2-month period;20 and the
10 HB 140
11 Respondent's closing submissions at [10]
Applicant completed less than 120 hours (on her oral evidence, approximately 80 hours, between 19 June and 30 June 2023) of practical placement.
The respondent submits this evidence demonstrates necessary training was not provided in respect of all the subjects that form the basis that the Qualification. Further, there was a requirement for 120 hours of work placement which was not completed. At most only 80 hours was completed by the applicant.
Finally, the records of the College kept in WeWorkBook are unreliable and the Tribunal should be satisfied that necessary training was not provided and the Qualification should be cancelled.
In response, the applicant says she is a genuine student who completed the Qualification through Global.
She attended her placement with the care provider, was supervised in that role by nurses, cared for elderly residents, including people living with dementia and assisted those residents with their daily activities including meals and personal care. As requested, logbooks were completed and she received good feedback from nurses with whom she worked.
Relying on the documents she submitted to the Tribunal the applicant says:12
- I want to make it clear that I have not cheated or done anything wrong.
- I followed all the instructions from Global Educational Institute and did everything correctly.
- It feels very unfair that genuine students like me are suffering because of the actions of others.
At this point, I should make clear that no suggestion is made by the respondent that the applicant acted dishonestly or in any way inappropriately. Certainly, the Tribunal makes no adverse finding in respect of the conduct of the applicant.
However, the issue remains as to whether the Qualification should be cancelled pursuant to s 56(1) of the NVR Act.
12 applicant's closing submission at [3]
Legislation
The objects of the NVR Act (Objects) are set out in s 2A which provides:
2A Objects
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to provide for national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET); and
(b) to regulate VET using:
(i) a standards-based quality framework; and
(ii) risk assessments, where appropriate; and
(c) to protect and enhance:
(i) quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and
(ii) Australia’s reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and
(d) to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population; and
(e) to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and
(f) to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET.
As is evident from the Objects, the NVR Act purposes include:
(a)ensuring the quality of vocational education and training (VET), using a standards- based quality framework; and
(b)facilitating access to accurate information relating to the quality of that education and training.
To achieve these purposes, the NVR Act provides for registration of training organisations and permits the making of standards for those organisations as provided in s 185(1). The Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTO’s) 2015 (2015 Standards) is the standard applicable for the purpose of this review application.
Section 22 of the NVR Act provides an RTO, in this case the College, must comply with the 2015 Standards. In addition, RTOs must demonstrate commitment and the capability to deliver quality vocational education and training.13
Standard 8 of the 2015 Standards required the College, as an RTO, to meet the following requirements in respect of third parties delivering services on its behalf:
8.2. The RTO ensures that any third party delivering services on its behalf is required under written agreement to cooperate with the VET Regulator:
a) by providing accurate and factual responses to information requests from the VET Regulator relevant to the delivery of services; and
b) in the conduct of audits and the monitoring of its operations.
8.3. The RTO notifies the Regulator:
a) of any written agreement entered into under Clause 2.3 for the delivery of services on its behalf within 30 calendar days of that agreement being entered into or prior to the obligations under the agreement taking effect, whichever occurs first; and
b) within 30 calendar days of the agreement coming to an end.
In assessing students, Standard 1 of the 2015 Standards provides that to be compliant the RTO must meet various requirements including the following:
Assessment
1.8. The RTO implements an assessment system that ensures that assessment (including recognition of prior learning):
a) complies with the assessment requirements of the relevant training package or VET accredited course; and
b) is conducted in accordance with the Principles of Assessment contained in Table 1.8-1 and the Rules of Evidence contained in Table 1.8-2.
As to the Rules of Evidence concerning assessment, Table 1.8-2 provides:
Table1.8-2 Rules of Evidence
Validity The assessor is assured that the learner has the skills, knowledge and attributes as described in the module or unit of competency and
associated assessment requirements.
13 NVR Act s 22A
Sufficiency The assessor is assured that the quality, quantity and relevance of the assessment evidence enables a judgement to be made of a learner’s competency. Authenticity
The assessor is assured that the evidence presented for assessment is the learner’s own work.
Currency
The assessor is assured that the assessment evidence demonstrates current competency. This requires the assessment evidence to be from the present or the very recent past.
Once registered, an RTO may provide training and issue qualifications in respect of approved courses.
The NVR Act permits cancellation of qualification that have been issued by an RTO. Section 56 of the NVR Act provides:
56 National VET Regulator may cancel VET qualifications and VET statements of attainment
(1) The National VET Regulator may cancel a VET qualification or VET statement of attainment issued to a person by an NVR registered training organisation or former registered training organisation if the Regulator is satisfied on reasonable grounds that:
(a) the organisation did not provide, or arrange for another person to provide, all or part of the assessment necessary for the person to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for:
(i) the qualification; or
(ii) the units of competency or modules specified in the statement; or
…
(d) it is appropriate, in all the circumstances, because of action the Regulator has taken, or is taking, in relation to:
(i) the VET course, or part of the VET course, to which the qualification relates; or
(ii) the organisation, in respect of the VET course, or part of the VET course, to which the qualification relates; or
(iii) part of the VET course to which the statement relates; or
(iv) the organisation, in respect of part of the VET course to which the statement relates.
As s 56(1)(a) states, a qualification may be cancelled if the respondent (or on review the Tribunal) is satisfied on reasonable grounds the College did not provide all or part of the assessment necessary for the person to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required in respect of the Qualification or the units of competency recorded in the Transcript.
Further, cancellation may occur under s 56(1)(d) if, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to do so because of action taken by a respondent in relation to a course or part of a course to which the qualification or statement of attainment relates.
In the present case, for reasons which will become apparent, it is not necessary to examine in detail the operation of s 56(1)(d) or the extent of factors relevant to exercising any discretion conferred under s 56.
Suffice to say, s 56 is directed to maintaining the quality of the vocational education and training provided by an RTO and the authenticity of documents recording the fact of qualification or attainment of the specified skills. Where the discretion to cancel is enlivened, it must be exercised in accordance with the terms of the power, its purpose and the objects of the NVR Act.
Factual findings
There is no dispute that:
(a)the College issued the Qualification to the Applicant.
(b)s 56(4) applied to the College (that is the College was a former registered training organisation) and therefore s 56(5) did not prevent taking action against the Applicant under s 56(1) to cancel the Qualification.
(c)Prior to any decision to cancel the Qualification, the Applicant was given notice as required by s 57 of the NVR Act.
(d)In cancelling the Qualification, the respondent considered the response from the Applicant.
The Qualification purports to record the satisfactory completion of 18 units of study provided by the College applicant.
The evidence establishes the following matters:
(a)The Applicant applied to Global to enrol in a course purporting to offer a CHC33015 Certificate IV III in Individual Support (Ageing, Disability, Home and Community). At that time, the applicant had no knowledge of the College and understood that Global was the course provider, having been referred to Global through a friend.
(b)The Applicant paid a fee of $1500 to Global.
(c)Global conducted some training at its campus being a location at Campsie which the applicant attended for training on not more than 2 days. This location was not a location at which the College directly conducted training.
(d)The Applicant undertook 80 hours of work in an outplacement process.
(e)The Applicant was awarded the Qualification which consisted of 18 units, a number of those being electives. However, prior to attending Global, the applicant was not aware she was required to complete all these units nor did she make any selection of electives which form part of the Qualification. Insofar as the Qualification had sub- specialties, again the applicant was unaware of these sub-specialties and made no choice in connection therewith.
(f)In respect of the units of study set out in the Transcript, at most the Applicant only receive training at the Global campus in respect of First Aid (Code HLTAID011) and Manual Handling (Code HLTWHS002).
(g)Assessment in respect of the training in First Aid was limited to one assignment. Otherwise, there is no evidence of any assessments being made by Global in connection with all the courses in the Transcript which form the Qualification. In this regard, the applicant does not assert she undertook assessment activities following training at the Global campus other than in respect of First Aid.
(h)The Qualification was collected in person by the Applicant from Global.
(i)The qualification was issued by the College.
(j)The Applicant noticed the name of College Australia on the Qualification at around the time it was collected. However, she did not make any enquiry about the name nor, it would appear, did she appreciate the significance that it was an organisation different to Global. In this regard, she only became aware of the significance of this matter when action was taken by the respondent in connection with cancelling the Qualification.
There is no evidence of any training packages used by Global in conducting the training and assessment of the applicant for the purpose of determining competency.
There is no evidence of any agreement between the College and Global to provide the training in question. There is no evidence that any part of the fee paid to Global was remitted to the College.
The central question is whether, against this background, the Qualification should be cancelled.
Disposition of the Review Application
The evidence to which I have referred above satisfies me that no training or assessment was made in respect of all the courses in the Transcript on which the qualification was based as required by the 2015 Standards.
Aside from the issue of the Qualification and the WeWorkBook entries, there is little or no evidence the College did anything to ensure any training provided by Global to the applicant met the requirements of the 2015 Standards. Indeed, the terms of engagement of Global by the College, if any, and the basis upon which they dealt with each other, is unknown.
There is no evidence that those at Global providing the training which the applicant received at the Campsie campus of Global had the skills and competency to administer such training, let alone that they did so in accordance with any approved course provided by the College.
Having regard to the above, the only available conclusion is that the required training and assessment necessary to achieve the learning outcomes for the Qualification and each of the courses in the Transcript has not been provided.
In the absence of any evidence that the Applicant has been provided with the training and assessment necessary to achieve the Qualification and satisfy the requirements for each of the courses in the Transcript, allowing the qualification to stand would defeat the purpose of s 56 of the NVR Act and not meet the Objects of the NVR Act.
Consequently, the Qualification should be cancelled and the respondent’s decision to do so should be affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of the respondent is affirmed.
Date(s)ofhearing: 29 and 30 September 2025 Applicant:
Sandhya Neupane, Self-represented- by video
CounselfortheRespondent:
Ms C Roberts
SolicitorsfortheRespondent:
Clayton Utz
ANNEXURE A
Code Competency
Result
CHCDIS001
Contribute to ongoing skills development using a strengths- based approach
C
CHCAGE001
Facilitate the empowerment of older people
C
CHCHCS001
Provide home and community support services
C
CHCCOM005
Communicate and work in health or community services
C
HLTAAP001
Recognise healthy body systems
C
HLTINF001
Comply with infection prevention and control policies and
C
CHCDIV001
Work with diverse people
C
CHCDIS003
Support community participation and social inclusion
C
CHCDIS007
Facilitate the empowerment of people with disability
C
CHCDIS002
Follow established person-centred behaviour supports
C
CHCCCS015
Provide individualised support
C
CHCCCS025
Support relationships with carers and families
C
CHCCCS023
Support independence and wellbeing
C
HLTWHS002
Follow safe work practices for direct client care
C
CHCLEG001
Work legally and ethically
C
CHCCCS011
Meet personal support needs
C
CHCAGE005
Provide support to people living with dementia
C
HLTAID011
Provide First Aid
C
0
0
0