Victorian Institute of Technology Pty Ltd and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency - [2021] AATA 4926

Victorian Institute of Technology Pty Ltd and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency [2021] AATA 4926 (20 December 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/9669
Re:Victorian Institute of Technology Pty Ltd
APPLICANT

AndTertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R. West
Date:20 December 2021
Place:Melbourne

The application by Victorian Institute of Technology Pty Ltd for a Stay Order pursuant to section 41 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), is refused.
.......................[SGD].................................................
Member R. West
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to stay decision of Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency – Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students – decision not to renew registration – imposition of conditions – application to stay part of the decision - factors relevant to the granting of a stay – maintenance of standards for education and training – protection of students – insufficient evidence of financial impact – stay application refused
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth)
CASES
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] 181 FCR 130
Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798
VBJ and Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (2005) 87 ALD 747 47
Merage Group Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 713
Re BJSB Pty Ltd (t/a The Imperial College of Australia) and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 1053
Australian National College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 2221
SECONDARY MATERIALS
National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R. West
20 December 2021

This matter concerns an application brought, pursuant to section 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act), for a stay of part of the decision of the Respondent, dated 3 December 2021 not to renew the Applicant’s registration on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) effective 18 July 2022 under s10E of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) (ESOS Act) (Decision).
Background
The Respondent is an independent national quality assurance and regulatory agency for higher education, established under the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (C’th) (TEQSA Act) to regulate higher education using a standards-based quality framework. It is empowered under the ESOS Act, as an ESOS agency for registered higher education providers[1], to register providers on CRICOS and to impose conditions on a provider’s registration[2]. Only providers who are registered on CRICOS are able to offer higher education courses to overseas students.
[1] S.6C ESOS Act
[2] S.10B&C ESOS Act
The Respondent is also empowered to renew (or not renew) a provider’s registration using a risk management approach when considering renewal[3]. In assessing an application for renewal, the Respondent is required[4] to be satisfied that a provider complies, or will comply, with the ESOS Act and the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 (National Code).
[3] S.10E ESOS Act
[4] s.11(b) of the ESOS Act
The Applicant is a registered higher education provider which provides higher education courses to overseas students leading to the degrees of Bachelor of Information Technology and Systems, Master of Information Technology and Systems and Master of Business Administration degrees. It has campuses in Melbourne and Sydney.
The Applicant applied for renewal of its registration on CRICOS pursuant to s10D of the ESOS Act on 31 August 2020. From 31 August 2020 to 1 December 2021 the Respondent undertook an assessment process[5] and on 3 December 2021 made the Decision to refuse the renewal of the Applicant’s registration with CRICOS.
[5] Details of the process are set out in a timeline annexed as Attachment B to the Statement of Reasons for the Decision
The Decision was communicated to the Applicant by letter dated 8 December 2021. Written reasons for the Decision were communicated to the Applicant on 15 December 2021 (Statement of Reasons).
The Decision has three aspects. First, the Respondent refused to renew the Applicant’s registration on CRICOS effective 18 July 2022 under s10E of the ESOS Act (Refusal). Consequent to the Refusal, the Respondent imposed five conditions on the Applicant pending the cessation of the Applicant’s registration pursuant to s10B of the ESOS Act (Conditions). Thirdly, the Respondent rejected applications to extend registration to new locations in Geelong and Adelaide.
The Application for a stay in these proceedings relates only to the first two Conditions, namely:
Condition 1: VIT must not allow any overseas student to be newly enrolled or commenced in any of its higher education courses, with effect from the date on which VIT is notified of a decision to reject VIT’s application under s.10E of the ESOS Act.
Condition 2: VIT must provide each overseas student enrolled in its higher education courses (overseas higher education student(s)) with written notice no later than 14 days after VIT is notified of a decision to reject VIT’s application under s.10E of the ESOS Act.
Condition 2 included a requirement that the written notice be in the form of a draft letter annexed as Attachment A.
Evidence
In considering the application for a stay, the Tribunal has had regard to the following:
a.the Decision and Statement of Reasons, dated 3 December 2021 and annexures;
b.the expert report of Dr Michael Cowling, dated 31 May 2021 (Cowling Report);
c.the affidavit of Nagarjan (Arjun) Surapaneni, sworn 15 December 2021 (Exhibit A1);
d.the affidavit of Nick Galatas, affirmed 16 December 2021 (Exhibit A2);
e.the supplementary affidavit of Nagarjan (Arjun) Surapaneni, sworn 16 December 2021(Exhibit A3); and
f.the affidavit of Cris Vega, affirmed 17 December 2021 (Exhibit R1)
Applicant’s Submission
The Applicant relied on the affidavits of Mr Surapaneni and Mr Galatas. The Applicant’s submission in support of its application for a stay was, in summary:
a.The Tribunal can be satisfied that by enrolling new students the Applicant would not be exposing them to a ‘sub-optimal education’. It pointed to number of factors to substantiate its assertion:
i.the Respondent had conducted an audit and renewed the Applicant’s registration under the TEQSA Act in January 2021;
ii.the Decision did not identify any poor student outcomes; and
iii.the Respondent had not imposed any sanctions on the Applicant.
b.The imposition of Conditions 1 and 2 were for the convenience of the students and not to protect them from bad education.
c.Conditions 1 and 2 are unnecessary as the Act already provides a mechanism for transfers, credits and fee refunds, and the Students, as higher education students, are capable of understanding the effect of the Decision and taking appropriate action to secure their position.
d.If Conditions 1 and 2 are not stayed, and particularly if the Applicant is unable to enrol new students, it will have very serious effects on the Applicant’s financial position; although it was conceded that the imposition of Conditions 1 and 2 did not threaten the Applicant’s financial viability.
e.The Applicant had good prospects of success on appeal having regard to the fact that the issues raised in the Decision were essentially process issues and the Tribunal has broad discretionary powers in determining the appeal which would enable it to renew the registration with conditions imposed to address any perceived shortcomings.
f.If the Applicant’s appeal is successful, it cannot recover the financial losses resulting from Conditions 1 and 2 and the ban on enrolling new students will have served no purpose.
Respondent’s Submissions
The Respondent provided a written outline of submission setting out its principal arguments in opposing a stay. They were:
a.The Applicant has not provided any evidence in the form of financial statements or reports, tax returns or banks statements (save for a “Monthly CashFlow Forecast Report”); and the affidavits of Mr Surapaneni fall short of establishing that the Applicant would collapse if the stay is not granted.
b.If there is a stay of Condition 1, but the Applicant’s substantive application is ultimately dismissed, there would at the very least be disruption caused to the students who have been enrolled in the interim.
The harm that would be occasioned would go beyond disruption. In its Statement of Reasons, the Respondent expressed serious concerns about the quality of the education that the Applicant’s students are receiving and that the instances of non-compliance were not isolated errors or oversights but amount to significant and systemic flaws which erode the integrity of the awards that VIT offers and the standard of education and care it provides for its students, which have potential to have real and significantly adverse consequences for the higher education sector, and to damage Australia’s reputation for quality education.
c.The Statement of Reasons sets out, in detail, why the Respondent has made the decision it has. The Tribunal should have due regard to that assessment and the public interest in the Respondent fulfilling its statutory functions.
d.In making its Decision, the Respondent had regard to the inevitably adverse impact of its decision on the Applicant and its staff, as well as on its existing and prospective future students. However, balancing those matters, the Respondent has no confidence that the Applicant would take meaningful actions to ensure that its policies and procedures are implemented or would sustain the effort required to maintain compliance with the requirements of the ESOS Act over the period of its registration, even for a shorter period.
Principles
The power to impose a stay is contained in section 41(2) of the AAT Act which provides:
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.
Section 41(2) provides for the Tribunal to stay a part of a decision as the Tribunal considers appropriate for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of the hearing and determination of the application for review.
Significantly, before a stay is granted the Tribunal must determine whether it 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.
The Tribunal has determined that the following considerations may be taken into account when determining whether to exercise the power generally to grant a stay.
a.the prospects of success;
b. the consequences for the applicant of the refusal of a stay;
c.the public interest;
d. the consequences for the respondent in carrying out its functions depending upon whether a stay is granted or not;
e. whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted; and
f.other matters that are relevant include the length of time that the ban has been in place already and the gap between the day of the application and the day of the hearing of the application.
Such principles were stated in Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission[6] and referred to by Cowdroy DP in Merage Group Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority[7].
[6] [2009] AATA 798
[7] [2019] AATA 713 at [28] and see also the cases there cited
Consideration of the Issues
The prospects of success
It is not proper at this point for the Tribunal to attempt to definitively assess the merits of the Applicant’s case and determine whether the Decision is the correct or preferable decision. That is the task for the Tribunal at the hearing of the substantive appeal. It is appropriate, however, for the Tribunal to make a general assessment of the parties’ prospects of success and in particular to decide whether the Applicant has at least an arguable basis for the appeal.
Having considered the Statement of Reasons and reviewed the Affidavits of Mr Surapaneni, and in particular his reference to the independent expert assessments provided to the Applicant by Associate Professor Mustard, Professor Baird, and Professors Ng and Sebastian[8], the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has at least an arguable basis for its appeal.
[8] Exhibit A1 at [25]-[30]
The Tribunal accepts the submission of the Applicant that the Tribunal’s discretionary powers in determining the appeal would enable it to renew the registration with conditions imposed to address any perceived shortcomings. In addition, when reviewing the Decision, the Tribunal is not confined to the evidence considered by the Respondent in reaching its decision, and the parties will have an opportunity to supplement their evidence.
Having regard to these matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant has some prospect of success on appeal.
The consequences for the Applicant of the refusal of a stay
The Applicant’s assertion regarding the consequences of refusing the stay are summarised in the affidavit of Mr Surapaneni, sworn 15 December 2021[9] as follows:
If, as we expect, the Tribunal sets aside TEQSA’s decision not to renew our registration, we will not have a pipeline of students and we will be financially debilitated and suffer irreparable loss and damage. Unless stayed, conditions 1 and 2 are very likely to destroy the pipeline of students.
[9] Exhibit A1 at [18]
Mr Surapaneni’s second affidavit[10] went further, stating that the Applicant’s forecast income will be reduced dramatically to the point at which our higher education business will no longer be viable.
[10] Exhibit A3 at [13(i)]
These assertions were not maintained in counsel’s oral submissions, where it was conceded that the effect of Conditions 1 and 2 would not threaten the ultimate financial viability of the Applicant. As the Respondent’s counsel highlighted in submissions, the Cashflow Forecast Report annexed to the second affidavit[11] indicated that during the period from December 2021 to July 2022 the Applicant’s forecast income from existing enrolments was likely to match the claimed monthly expenditure of $1.757m[12] and the Applicant had acknowledged that it currently has a cash reserve of $4.6m[13].
[11] Exhibit A3, AS-7
[12] Exhibit A1, AS-5
[13] Exhibit A1 at [8]
On the basis of the evidence the Tribunal accepts that the effect of Condition 1, by preventing new enrolments pending the appeal, will have significant financial consequences for the Applicant by disrupting the pipeline of new enrolments and the cash flow that it would have generated. If the Applicant’s registration is renewed on appeal, the effect of the Condition is likely to have an ongoing effect as it is likely to take the Applicant some time to recover its enrolment numbers.
The Tribunal also accepts that Condition 2 is also likely to have a negative effect on the Applicant’s financial position by increasing the attrition rate for existing students[14].
[14] See Exhibit A3 at [11]
The Tribunal also accepts that the negative effect on the Applicant’s financial position may well lead to the need to reduce staff numbers[15].
[15] Exhibit A1 at [10]
In addition, the Conditions can be expected to impact negatively on the reputation of the Applicant; although the principal cause of any injury to reputation is likely to flow from the Decision itself and the fact of non-renewal, rather than the imposition of the Conditions.
Taking these matters into account, the Tribunal accepts that a stay on Conditions 1 and 2 would avoid significant adverse effects on the Applicant’s business and on its staff.
The public interest
In assessing the public interest, the consideration which must be foremost in the Tribunal’s mind is the scheme embodied by the relevant legislation[16], in this case the ESOS Act.
[16] Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] 181 FCR 130 at [52]
The principal objectives of the ESOS Act set out in s.4A are:
(a) to provide tuition assurance, and refunds, for overseas students for courses for which they have paid; and
(b) to protect and enhance Australia's reputation for quality education and training services; and
(c) to complement Australia's migration laws by ensuring providers collect and report information relevant to the administration of the law relating to student visas.
The Respondent identified two particular findings in the Statement of Reasons that justify preventing new enrolments in order to protect Australia’s reputation for quality education and training services, that the Applicant had breached:
a.Standard 2.2 of the National Code, which requires providers to have and implement a policy to assess whether admitted students have the educational qualifications sufficient to enable them to enter the course; and
b.Standards 8.4 and 8.8 of the Code, which requires providers to identify, notify and support students at risk of not meeting course progress requirements.
In addition, under the TEQSA Act, the statutory objects of the Respondent include:
a. to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, higher education in Australia by requiring the provision of quality higher education; and
b. to protect and enhance … excellence, diversity and innovation in higher education in Australia.
The Tribunal has recognised that the public interest in the reputation of Australia’s higher education market is relevant[17].
[17] Australian National College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 2221 at [35]-[37]
The Tribunal must also consider the persons whose interests are to be taken into account by the parliament in giving the decision-maker power to make the decision as part of its regulatory role[18]: In this context, the interests of overseas students and potential students forms an important part of the consideration.
[18] VBJ and Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (2005) 87 ALD 747 at [42]
Condition 1 is designed to ensure that new students are not enrolled in the Applicant’s courses and subject to the failings identified in the Decision. It will also have the effect of directing new students to other institutions so that their education is not disrupted by the non-renewal of the Applicant’s registration after 18 July 2022, should the appeal fail.
As the Applicant has acknowledged[19], Condition 2 is designed to achieve an orderly transition of existing students to other providers in anticipation that the Applicant will cease delivering courses to international students from 18 July 2022.
[19] Exhibit A2, [5] of NG-1
The imposition of Conditions 1 and 2 is clearly in the interests of new and current students. The purpose of a stay is to address the disadvantage for the Applicant, recognising its opportunity to have the Decision set aside on appeal.

The effect of a stay on Conditions 1 and 2 for new overseas students would be to expose them to the prospect of unwittingly enrolling in courses offered by the Applicant to commence in March and July 2022 which may not be continued beyond 18 July 2022 if the appeal is unsuccessful. In that eventuality, the students’ education would be disrupted in mid-course and they would be required to seek enrolment in alternative institutions. If the stay is not granted, Condition 1 would have the effect of requiring new students to seek enrolment elsewhere from the commencement of 2022 and avoid the prospect of future disruption.
For existing students, a stay of Condition 2, in the absence of any other action by the Applicant or the Respondent itself, would deny them advanced notice of the possible ending of their course of study in July 2022. Again, this could expose those students who are part-way through their course at 18 July 2022 to disruption if the appeal does not succeed; and deny them the ability to seek alternatives ahead of any appeal decision. On the other hand, if the appeal was successful, those students may have had the opportunity to continue in their chosen courses without disruption.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s submission that the imposition of Conditions 1 and 2 were for the convenience of the students and not to protect them from bad education.
It trivialises the implications of the Decision for students to describe it as inconvenience. While the legislation does provide mechanisms to deal with transfers, credits and fee refunds, it is no small matter for a young person recently arrived in the country and perhaps with limited English language skills to make decisions regarding changes to courses, to identify the appropriate institution to resume their study, and to deal with potential disruption to their personal arrangements and relationships.
Whether the measures are justified as protecting the students from bad education is a matter that can be determined in the appeal proper. For the purpose of the stay application, the Tribunal is satisfied that the motivation for the arrangements was the Respondent’s concern that the Applicant was not providing education to the required standard.
The Tribunal notes the option proposed by the Applicant in its solicitors’ letter to the Respondent’s lawyers of 9 December 2021 that, if Conditions 1 and 2 are stayed, the Applicant would agree to a condition that it ..notify its current students, its enrolled students scheduled to commence in March and any students it proposes to and does enrol for any later intake, that TEQSA has decided not to renew its CRICOS registration and that decision is presently being reviewed by the Tribunal[20]. While that option is not ideal from the student’s perspective, it does offer some reasonable protection to the Applicant’s business by providing an opportunity for it to generate a continuing flow of students should its appeal be successful, and it offers some forewarning to the students. However, as the Respondent points out, the notice proposed by the Applicant leaves it to the students to make their own decisions about starting or continuing their enrolment; and it may result in unintended or unwitting consequences for them given their age and lack of experience. The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s assertion that in all cases the Tribunal should assume that higher education students are able to properly understand the implications of the Decision for their own education. It is important to bear in mind that the cohort of students to whom the notice would be directed are new students from overseas who have yet to be involved in the system in Australia.
The consequences for the Respondent in carrying out its functions depending upon whether a stay is granted or not.
[20] Exhibit A2 at p.3 of NG-1
The Respondent, in refusing to renew the Applicant’s registration, has sought to take a balanced approach by deferring the non-renewal until 18 July 2022 to provide an opportunity for existing students to complete their existing course or, if they are unable to do so, to make alternative arrangements. Conditions 1 and 2 are imposed to deal with the implications of the deferred implementation having regard to the Respondent’s statutory responsibilities. Condition 1, by preventing new enrolments, is designed to have the immediate effect of preventing the Applicant from conducting further courses in breach of its obligations. Condition 2 is designed to inform existing students as to the effect of its Decision so that they can take action before the non-renewal takes effect. In taking these steps, the Respondent acted on its assessment that the Applicant would not take meaningful actions to ensure that its policies and procedures are implemented or would sustain the effort required to maintain compliance with the requirements of the ESOS Act over the period of its registration, even for a shorter period. The Respondent submits that it had regard to the inevitably adverse impact of its decision on the Applicant and its staff, as well as on its existing and prospective future students in reaching its decision.
The granting of a stay on either or both of the Conditions would interfere with the Respondent’s assessment of the correct balance to be struck between these competing interests in how it discharges its statutory functions.
Whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted
The question here is whether the imposition of Conditions 1 and 2 would so damage the Applicant’s business that it could not continue to operate as a provider even if the Decision were set aside on appeal. As Senior Member Dr. Cremean observed in Re BJSB Pty Ltd (t/a The Imperial College of Australia) and Australian Skills Quality Authority[21] :
It cannot be in the public interest for the Applicant to go out of business, which is the effect of the decision under review, if those decisions may be set aside upon a hearing as not being the correct or preferrable ones on the evidence.
[21] [2019] AATA 1053 at [15]
The Senior Member pointed out further that the Tribunal ...has a review function and I consider that function is subverted if a stay is not granted. That is to say, the purpose of conducting a review hearing will be futile if the Applicant cannot carry on business awaiting the outcome of the review.
It is incumbent on the Applicant for a stay to satisfy the Tribunal that the consequence of a stay being refused will result in such financial damage that the viability of the enterprise is a serious risk, and thus the absence of a stay would subvert the review function of the Tribunal. The Applicant has conceded that this is not apposite in this case.
Other matters
The Tribunal is satisfied that there are no further significant matters of relevance to its consideration.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed, the Tribunal is satisfied that the granting of a stay on either or both of the Conditions is not necessary in order to secure the effectiveness of the hearing and the determination of the application for review. It has not been established that the financial effect of the Conditions on the Applicant will cause it to cease to operate its business and render the appeal nugatory.
The essential consideration here is to weigh up the adverse consequences of the Conditions for the Applicant against the particular interests of the students and the public interest generally.
The Tribunal has no doubt that the imposition of Condition 1 will have a significant negative impact on the financial position of the Applicant and that it will likely indirectly affect the position of the Applicant’s staff. The Tribunal also accepts that Condition 2 is likely to have a negative effect on the attrition rate of existing students. The Applicant may also suffer some reputational damage as a result of the Conditions, although the principal cause of any damage to its reputation is likely to be the substantive decision not to renew its registration.
What the Applicant effectively asks for in seeking a stay of the Conditions in order to avoid these negative impacts is that the Tribunal:
a.allow it to enrol new students in its courses when the regulator has determined after an extensive audit that it is non-compliant, and in circumstances where the students may not be able to continue beyond July 2022 and will have to rearrange their studies; and
b.not require it to provide information to its existing students to forewarn them of the implementation of the Decision and the options available to them to deal with it.
It is in effect a request that the Tribunal put the interests of the Applicant ahead of the students to allow it to further its business interests on the basis of keeping the students uninformed as to the possible consequences of the Respondent’s decision.
The Tribunal does not accept that it is in the public interest to do so. The protection of students and the reputation of the Australian education and training industry are objectives of the legislation. The granting of a stay on the Conditions would not further those objectives.
The Tribunal has considered the option of granting a stay on Condition 1 subject to a condition that a written notice of the kind proposed by the Applicant’s solicitor be provided to potential new students. The Tribunal does not propose to adopt this course. First, the students to whom such a notice would be given are potential new students. They are in the main young people at the beginning of their tertiary studies. They are international students from a range of countries, cultures and backgrounds. It is likely that for many English will not be their first language. They can be expected to be unfamiliar with the Australian education system. In these circumstances, there is considerable doubt that the notices would be effective to properly warn students about the implications of enrolling with the Applicant.
In addition, absent a successful appeal, the Regulator’s assessment is that the education to be provided would not be compliant with legislative requirements. In the circumstances, the protection of the Australian industry’s reputation and the best interests of the students is best served by maintaining Condition 1 and preventing any further new enrolments until the appeal can be determined.
Therefore, having taken into account the interests of the persons who may be affected by the review, the Tribunal determines that it is not desirable to grant a stay on either of Conditions 1 or 2, and the Applicant’s application is refused.
However, the Tribunal notes that the form of written notice required under Condition 2, being Attachment A, does not adequately deal with the fact that an application for review has been made to the Tribunal. The Tribunal accepts that it lacks any power under s41(2) of the AAT Act to require changes to be made to the notice in circumstances where it has declined to grant a stay. However, the Tribunal recommends to the parties that they confer about an appropriate amendment to the notice to confirm that an appeal has in fact been lodged and the likely consequences for the students should the Tribunal set aside the Decision not to renew the Applicant’s registration.
Decision
The application by Victorian Institute of Technology Pty Ltd for a Stay Order, pursuant to section 41 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), is refused.

I certify that the preceding 59 (fifty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R. West

..................[SGD]......................................................
Associate
Dated: 20 December 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 15 & 17 December 2021

Counsel for the Applicant: T. Mitchell

Solicitors for the Applicant: GPZ Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: N. Wood

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date(s) of hearing:	15 & 17 December 2021
Counsel for the Applicant:	T. Mitchell
Solicitors for the Applicant:	GPZ Legal
Counsel for the Respondent:	N. Wood
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor