Western Institute of Technology Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a dispute between the Western Institute of Technology Pty Ltd (the applicant) and the Australian Skills Quality Authority (the respondent). The applicant sought to have its registration as a registered training organisation reinstated and its scope of registration expanded, following the cancellation of its registration by the respondent. The core of the dispute concerned the applicant's alleged non-compliance with various legislative and regulatory requirements governing vocational education and training in Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had failed to comply in material respects with its obligations under the *National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011* (NVR Act) and the *Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000* (ESOS Act), as well as the relevant Registered Training Organisation (RTO) Standards and the National Code. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the applicant's training and assessment standards, its adherence to approved capacity limits and provision of adequate facilities, the qualifications and experience of its staff, the quality of its English language proficiency assessments, its course attendance and progress monitoring practices, and its efforts to address identified instances of non-compliance.

The Tribunal's reasoning was heavily influenced by the evidence presented, particularly the detailed testimony of Ms Jacqueline Steward, a legal officer for the respondent. Despite challenges from the applicant, the Tribunal found Ms Steward's evidence to be credible, consistent, and frank. In contrast, the Tribunal found the evidence of the applicant's CEO, Mr Maranzano, to be lacking in detail and candour, often evasive. Based on this assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to meet its obligations in multiple material respects. These failures were considered serious as they struck at the heart of the regulatory objectives, including protecting the quality of education, Australia's international reputation, student welfare, and meeting national skills needs. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had comprehensively rectified these systemic and repeated non-compliances, noting that its approach had been piecemeal and lacked substance, indicating a reactive rather than proactive compliance strategy.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decision to cancel the applicant's registration and denied the application to change the scope of registration. The Tribunal found that the applicant's non-compliance issues were too serious and had not been adequately addressed to warrant setting aside the cancellation and scope decisions.