1. The objects of the NVR Act are found in section 2A and provide as follows:

to provide for national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET); and > > to regulate VET using: > > a standards - based quality framework; and > > risk assessments, where appropriate; and > > to protect and enhance: > > quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and > > Australia's reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and > > 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 > > to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and > > to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET.

2. This is achieved, in part, through the VET Quality Framework, which is defined in s 3 of the NVR Act and comprises the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations, the Quality Standards, the Australian Qualifications Framework, the Fit and Proper Person Requirements, the Financial Viability Assessment Requirements and the Data Provision Requirements.
3. ASQA is the National VET Regulator created under the NVR Act. It is responsible for granting applications for registration.[5] In deciding to grant an application for registration ASQA must consider whether the Applicant is complying, or will comply, with the VET Quality Framework and the applicable conditions of registration as set out in Subdivision B of the NVR Act.[6] ASQA and may conduct a compliance audit of an RTO at any time to ensure compliance with the registration regime.[7]
4. Subdivision B of the NVR Act sets out the conditions of registration which include amongst relevantly include, the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations (Standards)[8], a commitment and capability to deliver quality training[9], and cooperation with the National VET Regulator necessary for the Regulator to perform its functions.[10]
5. On 1 July 2025 the 2025 Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations (2025 Standards) came into effect. There are three components to the 2025 Standards:

(i) National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Outcome Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations) Instrument 2025 (Cth) (Outcome Standards) which are outcome focused requirements that support the delivery of a nationally consistent and high-quality training that leads to quality outcomes for students, industry, employers and the Australian community. > > (ii) National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Compliance Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations and Fit and Proper Person Requirements) Instrument 2025 (Cth) (Compliance Standards) which are administrative requirements that support integrity in the sector; and > > (iii) Credential Policy that outlines the credentials for delivering training and assessments and undertaking validation of assessment.

6. Prior to the implementation of the 2025 Standards, the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (2015 Standards) were in force. The 2015 Standards were revised to provide greater clarity on the direct link between the requirements of providers and the outcomes they are expected to deliver.
7. Training organisations must meet the standards if they wish to join the national registration system and become an RTO, and each registered RTO is obliged to comply with them.
8. The Respondent is also responsible for enforcement under the NVR Act. The relevant enforcement provisions begin in s 36 which provides as follows:

Sanctions > > (1) This Subdivision applies if: > > (a) after natural justice requirements have been satisfied, the National VET Regulator is satisfied that it is appropriate to impose one or more sanctions on an NVR registered training organisation; or > > (b) in exceptional circumstances, the National VET Regulator is satisfied that it is appropriate to impose one or more sanctions on an NVR registered training organisation without satisfying natural justice requirements. > > (2) The National VET Regulator may do one or more of the following: > > (b) give a written direction to an NVR registered training organisation requiring the organisation to notify its VET students, in writing, of a matter set out in the direction; > > (c) shorten the period of an NVR registered training organisation's registration; > > (d) amend an NVR registered training organisation's scope of registration; > > (e) suspend all or part of an NVR registered training organisation's scope of registration under section 38; > > (f) cancel an NVR registered training organisation's registration under section 39. > > (3) In determining what action to take in relation to an NVR registered training organisation, the National VET Regulator may have regard to: > > (a) the organisation's conduct, or circumstances existing, before the Regulator had cause to consider imposing a sanction on the organisation (including before the commencement of this section); and > > (b) if section 37 applies--the organisation's conduct, or circumstances existing, since the Regulator gave the organisation a written notice as mentioned in that section.

9. Section 37 sets out the natural justice requirements which is the relevant precondition to being satisfied that it is appropriate to impose the sanction. Sections 38 and 39 deal with the specific powers to suspend or cancel registration respectively.
10. Although the Respondent's discretion to cancel the registration of an RTO is broad, it must be exercised for the purposes of the Act and in the context of the regulatory regime.[11]
11. An organisation whose registration is cancelled must return the certificate of registration to the Respondent within 10 days of the day the cancellation takes effect.[12]

1. The objects of the ESOS Act are found in section 4A as follows:

to provide tuition assurance, and refunds, for overseas students for courses for which they have paid; and > > to protect and enhance Australia's reputation for quality education and training services; and > > to complement Australia's migration laws by ensuring providers collect and report information relevant to the administration of the law relating to student visas.

2. The "ESOS agency" for VET RTOs is ASQA.[13] ASQA is therefore responsible for granting and renewing registration for courses under the ESOS Act.
3. A provider may apply to be registered to provide a course or courses at a location or locations to the ESOS agency.[14] ASQA may renew the providers registration if the provider meets the registration requirements. [15]
4. Section 10E of the ESOS Act deals with renewal of registration. It provides that the ESOS Agency must use a risk management approach when considering whether to renew the registration of the provider.
5. Section 11 sets out the registration requirements. Subparagraph (b) includes a requirement that the ESOS agency is satisfied that the provider is complying, or will comply with, the ESOS Act and the National Code. The National Code, which is a legislative instrument made under the ESOS Act, supports these objects by establishing nationally consistent standards that govern the protection of international students and the delivery of courses by registered providers.
6. Part C of the ESOS Act set out what happens when a registered provider or an overseas student or intending overseas student, fails to start or finish a course with a provider, including the obligations on providers to provide refunds to students.
7. The Respondent is responsible for enforcement under the ESOS Act. Section 83(1) provides as follows:

Circumstances in which ESOS agency may take action > > (1) The ESOS agency for a registered provider make take once of more actions mentioned in subsection (3) against the provider, or an associate or high managerial agent of the provider, is breaching or has breached:

(a) This Act; or

(b) The national code; or

(c)If the ELICOS Standards or Foundation Program Standards apply in relation to the provider - those Standards-; or

(d) A condition of the provider's registration

1. Subsection (3) sets out the available actions as

(a) To impose one of more conditions on the registered providers registration either generally or in respect of any one of more specified courses for any one or more specified locations; > > (b) To suspend the registered providers registration either generally or in respect of any one or more specified locations; > > (c) To cancel the registered providers registration for any one or more specified courses for any one or more specified locations.

2. Once ASQA believes on reasonable grounds that a registered provider is breaching or has breached the ESOS Act, the power to take action against that provider is enlivened. Although ASQA has a broad discretion as to the action it can take, the discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised for the purposes of the Act and in the context of the regulatory regime.

1. The principle issue for the Tribunal is to determine whether the Decisions are the correct or preferable decisions on the material before the Tribunal.[16]
2. In undertaking this task, the Tribunal is not limited to evidence available to the Respondent at the time of the reviewable decision but should take into account all relevant evidence available to it at the time of the hearing.[17] By extension, the Tribunal is able to consider new or additional grounds to those identified in the reasons for decision, subject to procedural fairness considerations.
3. In the circumstance of this case, the Tribunal is required to consider:

(a) whether the Applicant has failed to comply with the regulatory requirements under the NVR and ESOS Acts including the Standards and the National Code; > > (b) whether the Applicant has demonstrated rectification of any identified non-compliance and is complying (or will comply) with the regulatory requirements; > > (c) whether having regard to the nature extent and seriousness of any non-compliance it is appropriate to exercise the cancellation power under the NVR Act and the ESOS Act, or whether a lesser regulatory response would be sufficient.

4. If the Tribunal affirms the cancellation decisions under the NVR Act and ESOS Acts, it will follow that the non-renewal decisions should also be affirmed.
5. If the Tribunal sets aside or varies the cancellation decisions under the NVR Act and the ESOS Act, the Tribunal must also consider whether the renewal of registration as an RTO or CRICOS provider should be granted.

1. The Tribunal had the benefit of the following material:
   • Affidavit of Evelin Cruz (Ms Cruz), the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Applicant on 31 March 2025;
   • Affidavit of Melinda Jane Cox (Ms Cox) sworn on 6 June 2025;
   • Affidavit of Monica Sofia Alonso- Morales (Ms Alonso -Morales) sworn on 24 June 2025;
   • Statutory declaration of (Student 1) dated 29 May 2025;
   • Statutory declaration of (Student 2) dated 6 June 2025;
   • Statutory declaration of (Student 3) dated 16 June 2025;
   • Oral evidence of Ms Cruz;
   • Oral evidence of Ms Cox;
   • Oral evidence of Ms Alonso-Morales;
   • Oral evidence of Student 1;
   • Oral evidence of Student 2;
   • Oral evidence of Student 3.
   • ASQA Fact sheet for reporting final date when closure of an RTO occurs.
   • Receipt identified by Student 3 dated 24 February 2025.
2. In addition to the material identified in the previous paragraph that was filed in anticipation of, or was introduced during the hearing, the Tribunal also had the benefit of the Tribunal Documents, the Supplementary Tribunal documents and the evidence considered as part of the two stay applications made by the Applicant. [18] The Tribunal also had regard to the written and oral submissions from both parties.

1. Ms Cruz's is the CEO of the Applicant, a position she has held since 2015. She began her career with BIC in 2012, initially as a Training Manger and then as a Compliance Manager. She was appointed CEO following the resignation of the previous CEO.
2. Ms Cruz's affidavit, including exhibit 'EC-1' and 'EC-2", comprised the evidence upon which the Applicant sought to rely at hearing. That material was said to demonstrate rectification of non-compliance and present compliance with the regulatory framework.
3. In her affidavit, Ms Cruz confirmed the Applicant no longer presses renewal of CRICOS registration in respect of the Hospitality and ELICOS courses. She stated that decision was driven by insufficient enrolments, operational costs and reputational damage, which rendered continuation of those courses impractical.
4. In admitting to some isolated incidents Ms Cruz states the Applicant has identified the root causes of the non-compliance as alleged by the Respondent, namely inconsistent and infrequent monitoring of key processes and, moving forward, will implement regular reviews to enable it to identify potential risk and ensure compliance at all times.
5. Ms Cruz gave further evidence that, during the audit and internal review stages, BIC had engaged external compliance consultants whose work she later considered to be deficient. She stated that documents prepared by those consultants, and submitted to ASQA as evidence of compliance, contained errors and were poorly prepared. From October 2024, Ms Cruz said she personally assumed responsibility for overseeing compliance including obtaining advice from external advisors such as Mr James Nash.
6. Ms Cruz's affidavit expresses a genuine commitment to improvement and compliance which she says is reflected in:
   • reviewing and addressing the concerns identified by ASQA in the statement of reasons;
   • implementing a system that ensures continual internal audits, regulatory compliance and student support;
   • increased professional development and compliance training for staff;
   • updated policies around student enrolment, assessment and associated record keeping;
   • an action plan with clear milestones and timelines;
   • identifying key personnel and their role in voluntary compliance, including creating a new Compliance Officer position; and
   • engaging Mr Nash to monitor compliance for a 12-month period should the Decisions be set aside and registration renewed.
7. Exhibited to the affidavit is EC-1, a document titled 'Barkley International College Audit Response March 2025'. It identifies clauses of the 2015 Standards and the National Code said to have been breached, reproduces ASQA's findings, and sets out the Applicant's response to each finding. Hyperlinks are included to documents said to support the Applicant's response.
8. EC-1 expressly states that no evidence or response is provided in relation to the Hospitality or ELICOS courses on the basis that those courses are to be removed from the Applicant's scope of registration.

1. The key evidence obtained during Ms Cruz's evidence can be summarised as follows:

1. Ms Cruz was cross- examined about the status of the Applicant's website following the First Stay Decision. ASQA had filed evidence of screenshots and metadata which it says demonstrate the website remained accessible after cancellation decisions took effect.
2. Ms Cruz gave evidence that she was present when the website was disabled and that she observed a message indicating that the business was permanently closed should it be searched. She did not attempt to access the website again until ASQA later raised concerns.
3. Ms Cruz accepted that when she accessed the website on her mobile phone after being made aware of the Respondent's concerns, it appeared to be operational. She attributed this to a caching issue and said that after refreshing the cache the website displayed the business as permanently closed.
4. The affidavit of Ms Cruz, which was sworn on 31 March 2025, included links to the website. She conceded in cross-examination that at the time of swearing the affidavit it included links to a permanently closed website, and she should have known this. She did not agree the affidavit was misleading, or the links were included as the website was still operational.
5. I am satisfied that the inclusion of the website links in her affidavit in circumstances where the Applicant's registration had been cancelled and operations were required to cease, was careless and reflects a lack of attention to important detail.

1. Ms Cruz confirmed in cross-examination that the Applicant was informed in May 2024 and again in November 2024 that if the cancellation decisions came into effect, certain actions would need to be undertaken by BIC. She maintained BIC was ready to comply with those obligations and that any failure to do so resulted from revocation of systems access, and in particular PRISMS.
2. Ms Cruz stated that results for competences achieved between January and March 2025 had not been uploaded as the reporting was undertaken once annually by the 28th of February. Her evidence did not explain why information could not uploaded after this date in anticipation of the cancellation decision.

1. Ms Cruz agreed that it was important to advise students as soon as possible once the cancellation decision had taken effect and that it was her personal responsibility to ensure this had occurred.
2. On 7 March 2024 an email was sent on behalf of BIC by Mr Jaskaran Singh to the students which stated:

Dear Students, > > I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to inform you of an important development regarding Barkly International College. > > ASQA**,** the National Regulator, has enforced an order requiring the College to cease operations effectively immediately. BIC will update all your results and contact you once they are ready. If you need any assistance please contact us. Your education and well-being are our top priorities. > > Please be assured that we have already lodged an appeal with the Federal Court, and we are confident in a positive outcome. We will continue to keep you informed throughout this process. > > In the unlikely event that our appeal is not successful, we are fully committed to ensuring that you are well taken care of. We will either provide a continuation of your studies or guide you through a secure transfer to another registered college. > > If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us by phone or email. We are here to support you through this time.

3. Ms Cruz agreed the statement was untrue, but at the time the email was sent she had been advised by Mr Rupinder Brar (the director of the BIC) that an appeal had in fact been lodged. It was not until a few days after the email had been sent, she was informed appeal had not been lodged and would not be pursued.
4. Ms Cruz accepted the error was not corrected by any subsequent written communication to the students. She stated that information was instead conveyed by telephone, in person or through migration agents, which was the preferred mode of communication of the student cohort.
5. Ms Cruz stated that notwithstanding incorrect information being given to her by Mr Brar in respect of the appeal, she didn't have any concerns about his honesty or appropriateness within the business more generally.
6. I am satisfied the email sent to students was misleading. While I accept that Ms Cruz may have relied on incorrect information provided to her, the failure to correct that misinformation or take direct responsibility for the critical communications, reflects a deficiency in governance.

1. Ms Cruz was taken to emails in the Supplementary Tribunal documents from students requesting or complaining about refunds. She explained that any delay in refunds was due to student error, for example by failing to provide the correct form or by not responding to contact from BIC.
2. Ms Cruz was also taken to the statutory declarations provided by Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3. Ms Wright asked questions about the timing of the refunds received by those students, which was after the statutory declarations had been served on the Applicant and before the hearing. Ms Cruz denied this was evidence of a systemic failure on the part of the Applicant. She stated that only five students (including Students 1,2 and 3) had not received refunds in timely manner, and this was as a result of having to navigate all the steps required by the closure with minimum staff.
3. It became apparent in cross examination that Ms Cruz did not have direct oversight of the refunds process and relied on information provided by other staff and Mr Brar. I accept the closure of the Applicant's operations presented logistical challenges for BIC, nevertheless this evidence demonstrates that responsibility for critical regulatory obligations was inadequately supervised by the CEO. The timing of the refunds to Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 indicates refund obligations were not managed proactively or systematically.

1. Ms Cruz confirmed in her cross examination that the Applicant was in breach of certain PRISMS reporting requirements during the audit stage.
2. Ms Cruz also gave evidence that important reporting requirements following cancellation were unable to be completed as the Applicant's access to PRISMS was removed following the First Stay Decision. In cross-examination she conceded that access to PRISMS was not required to provide students their results as this information should be contained in BIC's student management system.

1. Ms Cruz was asked questions about the statutory declaration that was filed by Mr Nash as part of the second stay application, and in particular his evidence that he was not engaged to provide an expert report of the Applicant's compliance.
2. Ms Cruz insisted that it was simply a misunderstanding as to terminology. He was engaged to help the Applicant return to compliance and to provide assistance where he felt they required support. She conceded that his task was limited to looking at the noncompliance as identified by ASQA and not the Applicant's operations more generally.
3. The transcripts and the First Stay Decision on their face demonstrate the Tribunal was plainly led to believe Mr Nash would provide a report to be relied upon at the final hearing. That understanding was not corrected until it was refuted by Mr Nash.

1. In response to questions about the annual declarations of compliance provided to ASQA, Ms Cruz conceded that in 2024 the Applicant did not meet the regulatory requirements and there was an inconsistency between the content of that self-assessment and the position advanced in the review. She conceded that compliance was a work in progress.
2. During cross-examination Ms Cruz conceded compliance issues with the training and assessment strategy and validation checklist for the Diploma of Business, inconsistencies in policies and attendance records and the presence of an effective governance system during absences or periods of uncertainty.
3. Ms Cruz also accepted that between 20 July 2022 and 20 July 2023 confirmations of enrolment exceeded the CRICOS registration duration, including after the issue was brought the to the Applicant's attention by ASQA.
4. Ms Cruz accepted that fit and proper person declarations have not been updated since 2023 and material changes to executive officers had not been reported to ASQA in breach of their obligations.

1. Ms Alonso-Morales is an Assistant Director employed in the Compliance Management team of ASQA, a role she has been in since December 2019. She is responsible for a range of regulatory functions including the conduct of internal review matters and the preparation of evidence forming part of applications before the Tribunal. Prior to commencing with the Respondent, Ms Alonso-Morales was employed at various RTO's in compliance roles.
2. The affidavit evidence of Ms Alonso-Morales was in two parts. The first was in respect of government databases to which she has access. The second was an expert report in which she gave an opinion as to whether certain actions of the Applicant complied with certain laws.
3. The evidence in so far as it clarified reporting requirements, including PRISMS was of assistance to the Tribunal.
4. Ms Alonso- Morales confirmed that the reasons provided by the Applicant as to why it required PRISMS access following cancelation were misguided. Qualifications are not issued from PRISMS and the Unique Student Identifier should be recorded in the providers student management system. She also confirmed that if the provider's student management system was up to date, this would allow a provider to issue qualifications in preparation for the cancellation.

1. Ms Cox is a Director in the Regulatory Policy & Engagement team of the Respondent. She has been in the role since May 2023. Prior to this, she held various roles in other Federal Government departments with a focus on contract and compliance management of providers delivering employment and skills related programmes. She has also worked for a community- based RTO.
2. In her affidavit, Ms Cox deposed to the following matters:
   • in November 2024, she was the Acting Executive Director in the Policy and Engagement Branch. She was first notified about the internal review during a verbal handover in preparation for acting duties.
   • she received the internal review papers on 12 November 2024. Following receipt of that material she had a brief discussion with Alicia Le'roy the Director of Internal Review and Appeals in respect of the non -compliance, potential risks to students and details of the Applicants failure to cooperate during the internal review process. They also discussed the earlier compliance assessment which had been undertaken in February 2022.
   • after reviewing the documentation provided, she accepted the risks assessment and recommendations, agreed with the draft reasons and affirmed the original Decisions.
3. Exhibited to her affidavit were the following documents related to compliance activity concerning the Applicant:
   • Compliance Assessment Report dated 28 February 2022;
   • Compliance Management Risk Assessment and Decision Record dated 28 February 2022;
   • Compliance Management Risk Assessment and Decision Record dated 26 April 2022
4. In cross-examination, Ms Cox agreed:
   • that she did not conduct the internal review herself but received the statement of reasons as the delegate to make the final decision on internal review;
   • a large request for further information in respect of the internal review made of BIC relatively late in the time period in which the internal review decision was to be determined. She clarified the request related to earlier findings of non-compliance and so BIC was aware of the issues of concern.
   • she had not reviewed or had regard to EC-1.

1. Student 1 commenced their studies in a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) on or around 1 January 2025. On 3 March 2025, a $1000 tuition fee was made to BIC.
2. On 7 March 2025 Student 1 was advised BIC had ceased operations. On 23 March 2025 they emailed Mr Jaskaran Singh requesting a transcript and refund of the tuition fee. A completed refund form was provided on 21 April 2025. Student 1, as of the date of the statutory declaration, had not received any assistance in transferring to another institution, a transcript or a refund.
3. Student 1 accepted that a refund was ultimately received however they maintained that the process was timely and stressful.

1. Student 2 enrolled with BIC in October 2024 to study a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis. Student 2 paid a deposit of $1000 on or around 3 October 2024 and was required to pay the balance in monthly instalments of $700. Two further payments were made in November and December 2024.
2. In January 2025, Student 2 received an email from BIC in respect of the non- payment of fees. Student 2 attended BIC the following day and paid $500 in cash. A payment was also made by electronic transfer of $700 in February 2025.
3. On 6 March 2025, Student 2 received an email from BIC reminding them the next instalment was due on 10 March 2025. After receiving the email, Student 2 paid a further $400.
4. On 11 March 2025, Student 2 received an email informing them that the college had ceased operations. In April 2025, Student 2 provided a completed refund form. On 19 May 2025, Student 2 followed up the refund. At the time of making the statutory declaration in June, Student 2 had not received assistance to transfer to another college or refund of tuition fees.
5. Student 2 accepted that a refund was ultimately received.
6. Student 2 also gave evidence that qualifications were issued without attending campus or having undertaken the required coursework. I pace limited weight on this evidence in circumstances where it emerged for the first time during re-examination, was not the subject of prior notice and did not form part of the case advanced by ASQA. The evidence was not tested in any meaningful way either by reference to contemporaneous documents or through cross examination by the Applicant.

1. Student 3 enrolled to study a Diploma of Automotive Technology to be followed by a Certificate III in Automotive Diesel Technology on 24 September 2024. The tuition fee was $7500 which Student 3 had elected to pay by instalments.
2. Student 3 made payments on 26 November 2024, 22 January 2025 and 21 February 2025. On 11 March 2025 Student 2 was advised evening classes for the Diploma had been cancelled and that BIC had ceased operations immediately.
3. Student 3 was advised by their Migration Agent the college was still operating and conducting its classes as scheduled, and there was no need to transfer. The Student attended BIC following this advice. The doors were closed or they were advised there would be no classes.
4. Student 3 made a payment on 25 March of $500. On 27 March 2025, BIC contacted the migration agent and ask her to collect a transcript the modules completed and to arrange transfer to another college.
5. On 1 April 2025 the migration agent requested a refund on behalf of Student 2 and this communication was followed up on the 4th of April 2025. A completed a refund form was provided on 23 April 2025. Enquires about the refund were made on 6 and 8 May 2025. At the date of the statutory declaration on 16 of June 2025, the refund had not been provided.
6. Student 3 accepted a refund was ultimately received.
7. The evidence of the students indicates that refund process was not managed in a timely or systemic manner following cancellation.

1. The Applicant accepted in their closing submissions that some deficiencies were identified by ASQA during the review but that those deficiencies have been both acknowledged and addressed. It says the Tribunal's task is not punitive but rather protective and forward looking. If the Tribunal can be satisfied the Applicant is compliant with, or capable of complying with the legislative framework, historical noncompliance does not itself mandate cancellation or refusal of registration. Instead, it must be assessed in light of the subsequent conduct and remedial action.
2. BIC says significant steps have been taken following the compliance activity to revise policies, update training an assessment tools, retrain staff and implement improved governance and compliance systems. In their view, these steps demonstrate a materially different compliance environment from that which existed at the time of the audit.
3. More specifically:
   • in respect of training and assessment, any historical shortcomings have been rectified and revised assessment tools are now aligned to unit requirements. Systems are in place to ensure the collection of sufficient valid and authentic evidence of competence, and there is no risk of ongoing harm to students.
   • quality assurance processes have been strengthened through the introduction of internal audits, validation schedules and compliance monitoring arrangements. These measures demonstrate a commitment to continuous improvement and ability to maintain compliance without further regulatory intervention.
   • errors in respect of AQF certification were inadvertent and administrative in nature. Improved controls have been implemented to ensure that certification is issued only where assessment requirements have been met.
   • marketing and information issues have been corrected and the website course materials and student handbooks have been updated. There is a clear intention to ensure accuracy and consistency going forward.
   • any reporting errors in systems such as PRISMS were technical and have been remedied. Systems are now accurate and timely.
4. The Applicant contends cancellation would be disproportionate. A less serious regulatory response would be sufficient having regard to the steps taken by BIC, the resources invested in compliance, the absence of evidence of ongoing risk and the fact the organisation has been closed for some months.

1. The Respondent says that the evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates a serious and systemic noncompliance with the legislative requirements. The failures were not isolated or technical, but extended across multiple aspects of the business and went to the core integrity of the VET system. Cancellation is the only appropriate response.
2. More specifically:
   • in relation to training and assessment, the Respondent says the Applicant failed to collect sufficient evidence of competence, relied on assessment tools that were not appropriately aligned to unit requirements and maintained incomplete or unreliable student records. These deficiencies undermine confidence in assessment outcomes and are indicative of systemic failures rather than isolated error.
   • quality assurance and validation practises were inadequate. Validation was either not conducted, conducted late or undertaken by persons lacking appropriate independence. Further, internal audits were reactive and superficial and the Applicant did not have systems capable of identifying or addressing non-compliance absent any regulatory intervention.
   • in relation to AQF certification, certificates were issued without adequate evidence to establish the assessment requirements had been met. This undermines public confidence and represents a serious regulatory concern.
   • the Applicant failed to ensure the marketing information provided to prospective students was accurate and deficiencies persisted despite several opportunities to rectify them.
   • in relation to student management and reporting, the Applicant failed to meet obligations in relation to PRISMS and delays and accuracies compromised regulatory oversight and student protection. These failures cannot be dismissed as merely technical.
3. The Respondent says that to the extent there has been remedial action taken after the audit it should be given limited weight. First of all, the revised policies and procedures do not demonstrate that compliant practises are embedded or will be consistently applied. Second, mere assertions of future compliance are insufficient in the absence of sustained behavioural change, especially given the nature and extent of the past conduct. And lastly the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that compliance would be maintained once regulatory scrutiny is removed. In all the circumstances, cancellation of the Applicant's registration are appropriate and necessary to protect students in the integrity the VET quality framework.

1. Before turning to consideration of the substantive issues it is necessary for me to make some observations on the manner in which the proceeding was approached by the parties. The approach adopted meaningfully impacted on my determination of this matter.
2. At times during the hearing, there was a level of hostility evident between the parties. In addition, the parties appeared to be unwilling, or unable, to work with each to narrow down the issues in dispute. This approach was manifest in the following ways:
   • the Respondent did not meaningfully engage with the rectification evidence filed by the Applicant. For example, it did not seek to fully explain deficiencies in the Applicant's evidence until it presented its closing submissions on the third day of hearing. Although the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed by the Respondent indicated it did not accept the rectification evidence demonstrated compliance, it did not do so with any precision such that it could be addressed or answered by the Applicant at the hearing.
   • the Respondent expanded its case to include issues that were not of concern to ASQA as part of the audit process. Although I accept a party's case may evolve over time, the issues were not clearly particularised but framed broadly in the dismissal application and Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions as to the registration requirements.
   • the Applicant did not admit to any historical non-compliance in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions and only made limited concessions following the oral evidence of Ms Cruz. Some areas of non-compliance were plainly established on the documentary evidence.
3. Further, the manner in which each party chose to present their case at times frustrated the task of the Tribunal in coming to the correct and preferable decision. The Applicant relied heavily on a table exhibited to Ms Cruz's affidavit and the supporting documents, effectively placing that material before the Tribunal without a structured explanation as to how the evidence addressed the historical non-compliance and was said to demonstrate compliance with the 2025 Standards.
4. At the hearing, the Applicant proceeded on the premise that the evidence should be accepted because it had not been the subject of direct evidentiary challenge. The material was filed was extensive and a proper examination of those documents by the Tribunal was a timely undertaking.
5. The Applicant reframed it's case in the Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions in electing not to seek renewal of its Hospitality Courses and ELICOS Course and assumed that by reason of that decision alone, matters connected with those courses were wholly irrelevant to the Tribunal's task. While the Applicant did not admit to any non-compliance in respect of the Hospitality Course and ELICOS courses, it also did not squarely engage with the allegations of noncompliance in any substantive way. That approach was unhelpful. The non-renewal of those courses by itself does not render the alleged non-compliance immaterial, particularly where those matters form part of the basis upon which the cancellation decision was made.
6. The Respondent's case appeared to be based on an assumption that its findings of non-compliance at audit and affirmed at internal review were to be accepted or adopted by the Tribunal. It relied on particularly voluminous compliance material comprising of thousands of pages. No attempt was made to take the Tribunal through the primary material said to demonstrate non-compliance nor to explain how that material supported the conclusions relied upon at audit and then at internal review. A proper examination of this material by the Tribunal was a time intensive task. ASQA also did not lead any evidence as to the nature and adequacy of the rectification efforts of BIC.
7. A significant portion of the evidence led by the Respondent at the hearing and focus of questions in cross-examination was directed Applicant's compliance following the revocation of the stay and the obligations following cancellation. Although an important consideration, the focus on this at the hearing was ultimately disproportionate to the entirety of the issues for consideration.
8. As an example, ASQA called three students to give evidence. The evidence in chief was only directed to whether they had received a refund from the Applicant. Remarkably, the affidavitst in no way sought to engage with the student experience, the quality of the teaching or assessment or the other very significant matters identified at audit which would seem to be highly relevant to the Decisions.
9. The approach adopted in these reasons, including the level of detail with which the evidence is addressed and the manner in which the relevant Standards are analysed is a direct reflection of the way the proceedings were conducted. The Tribunal has considered a large number of documents,especially in respect of the audit material and rectification evidence. It is not practical to repeat that evidence in detail in the reasons.
10. The NVR Act and the ESOS Act contemplate decisions being undertaken on a risk assessment basis. This type of assessment does not involve a granular examination of every aspect of compliance in isolation but rather an evaluative assessment of the nature, extent and seriousness of the identified noncompliance, the systems, governance arrangements in place and the likelihood that compliance can be achieved and maintained going forward.

1. ASQA, as the National VET Regulator under the NVR Act, may impose a sanction on an NVR-registered training organisation's registration if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, subject to satisfaction of certain natural justice requirements.[19]
2. Cancellation is, however, only one of a number of sanctions or enforcement action available to ASQA.[20] The power to cancel is exercisable for the benefit of the public

rather than as a punishment, it ought only be exercised where to do so reflects the

minimum sanction necessary for the protection of the public interest.[21]

1. If one of the other sanctions referred to in s 36 of the NVR Act would be sufficient to bring about ongoing compliance, then the decision-maker should look to impose one of the lesser sanctions first.
2. While the power of ASQA to cancel an entity's registration is not conditioned on

establishing any particular non-compliance, the power must be exercised having regard to the statutory purpose.

1. The cancellation power is found in Division 3 of the NVR Act which is directed to ensuring compliance with the "VET quality framework". In this context, the state of satisfaction that must be arrived at as a pre-condition to an exercise of the power is one that might be arrived at in circumstances where the relevant NVR RTO is not (or has not) been operating in compliance with an element of the legislative framework. This is especially so where the relevant non-compliance is inconsistent with, or puts at risk the attainment of, the objects of the NVR Act. [22]
2. ASQA, as the ESOS agency under the ESOS Act for NVR-registered training organisations, may cancel a registered provider's registration for any one or more specified courses for any one or more specified locations. There are several circumstances in which ASQA may exercise that power. One such circumstance arises when it believes on reasonable grounds that the provider is breaching or has breached the ESOS Act including National Code.
3. As with the NVR Act, registration cancellation is only one of a number of sanctions or enforcement action available to ASQA for non-compliance under ESOS Act, and should only be exercised where it reflects the minimum sanction necessary.
4. In other words, non-compliance with the Standards or the National Code can be a trigger to an exercise of the applicable registration cancellation power under both the NVR Act and the ESOS Act, albeit that non-compliance may be assessed differently.
5. I am satisfied in this case and find the Applicant has breached the Standards and the National Code. Further, I am satisfied that the grounds of that belief are reasonable and the cancellation power is excisable. My findings and reasons are discussed in more detail below.

1. The Tribunal's findings are made in an important context. Audits are necessarily targeted in nature and do not comprehensively review every single aspect of a provider's operations. However, where non-compliance is identified in particular course or systems it may properly give rise to broader concerns as to compliance across the organisation as a whole.
2. The Applicant did not directly challenge or substantially contest the findings in so far as they applied to the Hospitality and ELICOS course in the review, although I accept that non-compliance was not formally admitted. BIC's decision not to seek renewal of courses the subject of adverse audit findings does not automatically alleviate or resolve concerns to the extent non-compliance is properly attributed across multiple aspects of the Applicant's operations or governance framework.
3. At audit, ASQA identified systemic noncompliance across multiple regulatory domains including training and assessment, marketing and recruitment, enrolment and written agreements, course duration progress and monitoring, use of education agents, governance, quality assurance and continuous improvement. It also identified noncompliance with important obligations under the ESOS Act relating to tuition protection and PRISMS reporting requirements. I agree with this conclusion and adopt those findings as described below.

Training and Assessment - Clauses 1.1, 1.2,1.3,1.8, 1.9, 1.13 and 1.16 of the 2015 Standards and clause 11.2 of the National Code.

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant did not demonstrate :
   • it had developed and implemented consistent and considered training and assessment strategies;
   • that it had considered the existing skills, knowledge, and the experience of the learner cohort when determining an appropriate amount of training for each of its products;
   • it had appropriate arrangements for the supervision and assessments of students, sufficient trainers and assessors to enable students to complete their training and assessment or facilities and equipment to accommodate and support the number of learners undertaking training and assessment;
   • there was an effective assessment system that ensures all its assessment tools and assessment practises meet the principles of assessment and rules of evidence;
   • its assessment tools and system complied with the assessment requirements of the relevant training package;
   • there was appropriate validation system as defined in the 2015 Standards or that it has considered the outcomes of its validation activities and implemented changes accordingly
   • that it systematically supported and monitored the professional development of trainers and assessors
   • the expected duration of CRICOS courses did not exceed the time required to complete them on the basis of full time study for VET courses;
   • trainers and assessors were suitably qualified and undertook relevant professional development.
2. The evidence provided, which included the training and assessment strategies for a number of courses, training timetables, student records, trainer and assessor files, assessment methods and various learning resources indicated:
   • inconsistent volumes of learning and delivery hours across strategies, a lack of explanation of how cohort characteristics informed delivery and a mismatch between timetables and assessment;
   • insufficient facilities and equipment for student numbers, no monitoring of resources, and unclear supervision and deployment of trainers;
   • the assessment tools lacked benchmarks and there was identical or replicated student evidence. Assessor judgments were unsupported by evidence and there was also no effective validation of outcome;
   • incomplete or retrospective validation records. There was no evidence that validation informed improvements had occurred;
   • trainer files lacked unit specific industry currency, there was a reliance on generic resumes;
   • there was no structured performance development framework, records were ad hoc and not linked to training products.

Regulatory Compliance and Governance - clauses 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 of the 2015 Standards and clause 4.1, 8.2 and 8.16 of the National code

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant did not demonstrate:
   • it entered into written agreements with all the third parties engaged with the provision of services on its behalf;
   • it has strategies to systematically monitor any services delivered on its behalf and that the service is delivered complied with the Standards;
   • confirmation of enrolments did not exceed the approved CRICOS durations or that it had sufficient systems and processes in place;
   • effective monitoring and continuous improvement of training and assessment processes.
2. The evidence showed:
   • continuous improvement registers lacked analysis or outcomes and that quality assurance processes existed largely at a policy level only;
   • incomplete agent records, no documented monitoring or review of agent performance, inconsistencies between PRISMS, BIC's website and commercial contracts;
   • legislative obligations were inconsistently reflected in policies;
   • errors in enrolment and marketing materials;
   • reactive rather than systemic compliance management.

Completion - clause 3.1 of the 2015 Standards

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant did not demonstrate that it issued a AQF certification documentation only to a learner whom it assessed as meeting the requirements of the training product as specified in the relevant training package.
2. The evidence showed that none of the student files sampled included the evidence required to achieve competency. The AQF issuance register showed the Applicant had issued a AQF certifications with issue and collection dates that were prior to the date the student completed the qualification.

Marketing and Recruitment - clause 4.1 of the 2015 Standards and 1.1 of the National Code

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant did not demonstrate that its marketing material accurately represented the service it provided and the training products on the scope of its registration. It also did not demonstrate it had a self- assured process to make sure marketing material was accurate and aligned with its practise.
2. The evidence, which included the marketing policy and procedures, the website, the student handbook, various written agreements, enrolment screening form and student prospectus, demonstrated inconsistencies across the website, prospectus and enrolment materials. There was also a lack of clarity regarding course requirements and assessment conditions.

Enrolment - clause 5.1 and 5.2 of the 2015 Standards and 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.3 of the National Code

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant did not provide comprehensive and accurate information prior to enrolment. It did not have appropriate recruitment practices to ensure students were likely to succeed taking into account the individuals existing skills and competency and written agreements did not contain all mandatory information.
2. The evidence indicated there was:
   • no documented needs assessment
   • no internal evaluation of support effectiveness.
   • prospectus information was incomplete or inaccurate.
   • an inadequate assessment of English proficiency, inconsistent entry applications, an overreliance on agents.
   • missing or unclear information on duration, breaks, refunds and fees. There was also inconsistency across enrolment documents.

Support and Progression - 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.9 of the National Code

1. The Tribunal finds the Applicant did not provide marketing materials that were current and accurate, there was no effective monitoring of overseas student course progress an attendance or timely intervention and the Applicant issued confirmations of enrolment exceeding registered durations without documented circumstances.
2. The evidence showed
   • the materials included incorrect course titles, durations, and work placement descriptions.
   • no effective approval or review systems were present and there was poor alignment between policy and practise.
   • PRISMS evidence indicated extended enrolments with no documented reasons and inadequate PRISMS controls.

What action is appropriate in the circumstances?

1. The Respondent argued the most appropriate sanction having regard to the circumstances surrounding the breaches of the ESOS and NVR Acts is the cancellation of the Applicant's registration.
2. For the purposes of the NVR Act, the Tribunal may have regard to the conduct and circumstances both before and after the Regulator gave notice of the intention to impose the sanction in accordance it the natural justice requirements.[23]
3. As to the question of whether the cancellation power is exercisable, the cases indicate the Tribunal should have regard to the following factors in exercising the discretion in respect of both Acts[24]:
   • the probability of the provider complying with its obligations within a reasonable timeframe and remaining compliant with those obligations;
   • the purposes of the Acts, which are directed to the protection of students and Australia's reputation for quality education and training;
   • deterrence to the sector generally and the need to promote voluntary compliance.
   • in marginal cases the inconvenience to current students may be of some relevance.[25] I do not consider this to be a marginal case.
4. The power to cancel the provider's registration is clearly available where the decision-maker has reason to believe the provider is unlikely to substantially comply with the regulatory regime within a reasonable time frame, and to thereafter remain in substantial compliance. If one of the other sanctions referred to in ss 83(3) of the ESOS Act or 36 of the NVR Act would be sufficient to bring about ongoing compliance, then the decision-maker should look to impose one of the lesser sanctions first.
5. The cancellation power should be exercised for the benefit of the public rather than a punishment and therefore should only be exercised where it represents the minimum sanction necessary for the protection of the public interest.[26]

1. In United Business College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority[27], Senior Member Furnell helpfully outlined an approach to assess the likelihood of timely and sustained future compliance as follows:

The first concerns the significance and extent of any College non-compliance before being put on notice of ASQA's concerns. This is relevant to an assessment of the recidivism risk because it is an indicator of the attitude or approach the College would adopt to regulatory compliance were it to be left substantially to its own devices (as it would be, were it to no longer be facing the immediate threat of loss of registration in an industry context that "is partly self-regulating, with limited resources available to the Regulator to conduct audits"). Attitudes displayed by the College in the past may well be displayed in the future, especially as there has been no change in its directors or shareholders since the College's initial registration under the NVR Act. > > The second consideration concerns the significance and extent of any past non−compliance and the extent to which, and manner in which, such non-compliance has been rectified. This is relevant to an assessment of the risk of recidivism as it is an indication of the College's capacity and willingness to implement remedial action which is both timely and effective to restore the College to a position of regulatory compliance. > > The third consideration concerns the significance and extent of any current non−compliance. Current non-compliance is relevant to an assessment of the risk of recidivism as: > > non-compliance in the face of an immediate threat to its survival as an educational institution does not bode well for the capacity or willingness of the College to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance in the future, absent that threat; and > > it is suggestive of the extent to which changes made by the College since being alerted to its compliance issues are likely to be successful in its achieving and sustaining substantial compliance. (footnotes omitted)

1. The non-compliance was extensive and spanned multiple aspects of the Applicant's operations. It was not confined to isolated administrative errors but went to core regulatory obligations relating to training and assessment, quality assurance, governance, certification, marketing, student management and reporting.
2. In assessing the seriousness of the non-compliance, it is necessary to consider both the number of requirements breached and the significance of those breaches in the context of the regulatory framework.
3. The historical non-compliance included deficiencies in training and assessment practices, the failure to collect sufficient evidence of competence, misalignment between assessment tools and unit requirements, and incomplete or inconsistent student records. These matters undermine confidence in assessment outcomes and the integrity of the qualifications issued.
4. Validation was not undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Standards and was done so irregularly or belatedly. The absence of robust framework limited the Applicant's ability to identify and address deficiencies proactively.
5. Serious concerns with AQF certification represents a significant regulatory failure with implications for student outcomes, employee confidence and the reputation of the VET system more broadly.
6. Student management and reporting obligations were not met. Failures in reporting, including through PRISMS, compromise regulatory oversight and student protection. These failures cannot be characterised as merely technical in nature.

Taken cumulatively, the historical non-compliance prior to being put on notice of ASQA's concerns, was serious and systemic. They were not technical or isolated lapses or errors capable of being easily corrected without sustained regulatory oversite. The non-compliance was a direct consequence of poor governance and quality assurance. Rectification efforts

1. The Applicant relied on the rectification evidence to contend that the non-compliance identified at audit and internal review had been addressed and it was now capable of complying with the regulatory framework.
2. The rectification evidence comprised revised policies and procedures, updated training and assessment materials, validation documentation, compliance and monitoring tools and evidence of staff training.
3. The Tribunal understands that Mr Nash was involved in the development and review of (at least some of) the policies and procedures. Although I do not draw any adverse inference from the fact that he did not give evidence in the proceeding, his direct independent evidence may have assisted the Tribunal in assessing the robustness of the Applicant's compliance framework and the likelihood that changes would be implemented.
4. While the volume of rectification material was substantial, the existence of revised documents is, of itself not determinative. The Tribunal must also be satisfied that compliant practices are embedded, understood and capable of being applied in practice.
5. A significant difficulty with the Applicant's rectification case is that much of the material was prospective in nature. It is also inconsistent with some aspects of the oral evidence which concede compliance is a work in progress.

Significance and extent of any current non-compliance

1. The Tribunal acknowledges that demonstrating current compliance was always going to be difficult for the Applicant, particularly in circumstances where it had ceased operating following revocation of the stay. That context has been taken into account in assessing the issue of compliance.
2. The Applicant argued there has been a significant departure from past practises such that the Tribunal could be satisfied that either the Applicant is compliant or would achieve compliance within a short period. A central feature of the Applicant's case was an invitation to the Tribunal to accept that asserted steps towards compliance will, if the Applicant is permitted to continue operating, be implemented in practice. That invitation necessarily requires reliance on future conduct rather than demonstrated present compliance.
3. Although I accept the approach is open to me, I am not prepared to place determinative weight on asserted future compliance in this case. The difficulty with the Applicant's submission is not merely that compliance has not been established, but that there is a demonstrated history in which assurances as to future action have not been followed through by the Applicant.
4. Examples of those matters include, but are not limited to the following:
   • during the first audit process assurances were given by the current leadership team that specific changes would be implemented to address identified deficiencies. Those changes were not in fact carried into effect.
   • deficiencies identified in relation to marketing and information provided to prospective and enrolled students waere identified at audit. These issues persisted despite opportunities to rectify them.
   • during the first stay application the Tribunal was advised that Mr Nash was in the process of preparing an expert report directed to compliance and would give evidence in the final hearing. That did not occur.
   • significant reliance was placed on the evidence of Ms Cruz who emphasised a new commitment to compliance said to be reflected in strengthened governance arrangements and increased senior leadership involvement. Aspects of the Applicant's conduct following revocation of the stay (such as communication with students, delays in refunds, uncertainty around record management) were inconsistent with that assertion.
5. Additional matters that also give me pause for concern are:
   • the extent of the Ms Cruz's understanding of internal and other reporting systems and their role in demonstrating compliance . Her evidence directed to why PRISMS was required post cancellation did not give the Tribunal confidence that there were sufficient systems knowledge or expertise at a senior level.
   • despite being given an opportunity to do so, there was no engagement with prospective compliance under the 2025 Standards. While I accept there is a large degree of overlap with the 2015 Standards (and specifically noncompliance with the 2015 Standards would mean noncompliance with the new regime), there was no submissions made as to how any new requirements will be met. This raises a concern as to whether the Applicant fully appreciate the regulatory framework within which it is required to operate.
   • during the course of the First Stay Application, the Applicant contended it faced insolvency should the stay not be granted. If that contention were correct, it raises serious questions as the Applicant's capacity to meet its ongoing compliance obligations which were not addressed in evidence by the Applicant. If it were not correct, it cast doubt on the reliability of assertions made to the Tribunal.

1. None of these matters viewed in isolation is determinative. Taken together they form a pattern that makes it difficult for the Tribunal to place weight on bare assertions as to future compliance. That difficulty is compounded by the Applicant's own concession that full compliance has not yet been achieved.
2. Although I accept the CEO expressed a genuine intention to improve compliance, commitment alone is insufficient where past conduct demonstrates systemic governance failures. In circumstances where there has been persistent and serious non-compliance and rectification has been largely reactive, the risk of recurrence cannot be regarded as low.

1. The second consideration underlying a determination as to whether a registration cancellation power should be exercised concerns the effect on the students and on Australia's reputation, both nationally and internationally, as a provider of high-quality education and training.
2. The purpose of the Standards and the National Code is to ensure that training delivered by RTOs and CRICOS providers meets industry requirements and has integrity for employment and further study, that providers operate ethically and consider the needs of both students and industry and to ensure consistency across the VET sector in Australia. The FVR Requirements for RTOs ensure they are able to operate sustainably and in so doing deliver high quality training and assessment services.
3. Given my conclusion that BIC cannot substantially comply with the registration requirement within a reasonable time frame, and thereafter remain in substantial compliance, the interests of students and our reputation in the education sector would be put at risk were BIC to remain registered.
4. The objectives of the NVR and ESOS Acts would be undermined if a provider were able to avoid the consequences of identified noncompliance simply by electing not to offer the courses in respect of which that noncompliance arose. Regulatory action must operate in a way that discourages such an approach and promotes sustained organisation wide compliance rather than course by course responses to regulatory scrutiny.

1. In my view, allowing an organisation to remain registered despite intentional, long standing and serious non-compliance would undermine the regulatory regime and voluntary compliance within the sector.

1. Cancellation of registration is a serious regulatory action. It should only be imposed where a lesser regulatory response would be insufficient to address the identified risk and protect the public interest.
2. I have considered whether a lesser sanction, such as conditions, suspension or scope reduction would be appropriate and proportionate in this case.
3. Having regard to the nature, extent, and seriousness of the Applicants conduct before and after being put on notice by the Respondent, the level of rectification that has occurred, concerns around current and prospective the objects of the NVR and ESOS Acts, I am not satisfied that a lesser regulatory response would be adequate.
4. In those circumstances, cancellation of the Applicant's registration under both the NVR and the ESOS Acts represents the minimum regulatory response to protect the public interest.

1. For the reasons set out above, the decision to cancel the Applicant's registration under the NVR Act and the ESOS Act are the correct and preferable decisions and should be affirmed .
2. It follows the decisions not renew and to reject registration as an RTO and CRICOS provider should also be affirmed.
3. The Decisions under review are affirmed by the Tribunal.

23 and 4 June 2025, 20 August 2025 and 27 November 2025

[1] Barkly International College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 242 and Barkly International College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (unreported decision of General Member R Smith dated 19 May 2025)

[2] CRICOS is the register that lists education providers that are approved to enrol international students under the ESEOS Act.

[3] Barkly International College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 242

[4] Barkly International College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (unreported decision of General Member R Smith dated 19 May 2025)

[5] National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (NVR Act), s 17

[11] Australian Tertiary Academy Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 4875 at [38]

[12] Education Service for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) (ESOS Act), s 39(2)

[16] Shi v Migrations Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31

[17] Re Ivy Education Group Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (2013) 134 ALD 446 at [30] and Re Echelon National Security Agency Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2014] AATA 151 at [17]

[18] That evidence included affidavits of Ms Cruz dated 24 January 2025, 12 February 2025 and 1 April 2025 and a statutory declaration of Mr James Nash dated 24 April 2025

[19] The natural justice requirements are set out in s37 of the NVR Act. It is not in dispute that natural justice was afforded to the Applicant in this case.

[21] Success Fast Track Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2012] AATA 531 at [81]

[22] United Business College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 2778 at [24]

[24] United Business College Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2019] AATA 2778 per Senior Member Furnell at [26] to [29]

[25] A_ustwide Institute of Training Pty Ltd and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2016] AATA 266 at 126_

[26] Success Fast-Track Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA at [37]

[27] [2019] AATA 2778 at [31] to [35]