1. The Respondent points out that s 73E(1) of the NDIS Act does not require the Commissioner to register a person even if they meet all of the criteria in the Act.[21] However, ss 73E(1)(d) and (e) of the Act and Rules 9(2) and 10(2) of the NDIS Registration Rules prescribe the matters which the Commissioner must have regard to in determining whether they are satisfied that an applicant is suitable to provide supports and services.[22]
2. The Respondent also points out that most of the matters in rr 9(2) and 10(2) of the NDIS Registration Rules concern matters related to whether the applicant (or their Key Personnel) has been subject to any enforcement measures such as banning orders, criminal convictions, disqualifications from managing corporations etc which are matters not relevant to these proceedings.[23]
3. The Respondent further points out that the Commissioner is also to have regard to 'any other matters the Commissioner considers relevant' and in these proceedings 'other matters' include whether the Applicant and its Key Personnel are able to ensure continuity of care for NDIS participants, as well as the qualifications, skills and experience of the Applicant and their Key Personnel to provide disability supports and services.[24]
4. The Respondent's contention is that CBB and its Key Personnel, Ms Sharma, are not 'suitable' to provide support or services under ss 73E(1)(d) and (e) of the NDIS Act on the grounds that:[25]

(a) Ms Sharma, as CBB's sole Key Personnel, is not suitable because she does not have sufficient qualifications, skills or experience to provide supports or services to people with disability, and > > (b) Ms Sharma, as CBB's sole Key Personnel, is not suitable because her visa is temporary and CBB has not provided satisfactory evidence that continuity of care would be provided to NDIS participants if Ms Sharma is unable to remain in Australia.

5. The Respondent submits that, having regard to the context and purpose of the statutory scheme for the registration of providers, and the objects and functions of the Commissioner, the ability to ensure continuity of care for participants, and the qualifications, skills and experience of an applicant and their Key Personnel in providing disability services, are significant considerations in determining whether they are 'suitable' to be a registered NDIS provider.[26]
6. At the hearing, Mr Wong acknowledged that the Respondent's current contentions are different from the reconsideration delegate's decision for refusing CBB's application on the grounds given by the primary delegate that CBB's responses to the NDIS practice standards duplicates or are identical to responses provided by other applicants.

1. In Sunshine Disability Care Services Pty Ltd and Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (Sunshine Disability), I examined the scope of the discretion conferred on the Commissioner to mitigate the risk of people with disability being provided with poor or unsafe supports and services. That analysis applied orthodox principles of statutory interpretation, having regard to the text of the relevant provisions and to the legislative context and purpose. [27]
2. In Sunshine Disability, I concluded that the discretion is broad. It extends to consideration of an applicant's qualifications, skills and experience, as well as those of their key personnel, and includes an assessment of their capacity to act with integrity, honesty and transparency when determining whether they are 'suitable' to be registered NDIS providers. [28]
3. I adopt my analysis of the statutory provisions at [30]-[40] of Sunshine Disability. Consistent with that reasoning, I also consider an applicant's ability to ensure continuity of care for participants to be a relevant factor in assessing suitability. This is because continuity of care is integral to mitigating the risk of people with disability suddenly losing supports and services, with the consequent potential for harm.

1. The Applicant submits that Ms Sharma in the Key Personnel position of CBB's Director has 'over 5 years of hands-on experience in aged care, home care, and disability support' and its 'key personnel' Ms Ramos has over 21 years of experience in the field.

1. In CBB's application, Ms Sharma is listed as having a number of qualifications including a Bachelor of Commerce, Masters in Business Information Systems and a Certificate III in Individual Support.[29]
2. CBB's application states Ms Sharma as being in the position of 'Director' and in the role of 'Key Personnel'.[30] It also states that Ms Sharma is a disability support worker and has aged care experience and community experience of '4 years'.[31]
3. Ms Sharma's experience as stated in her resume provided with CBB's application is:

(a) 2 years' experience as a Personal Care Assistant in Warrandyte > > (b) Gardens Care Community (aged care) > > (c) 6 months' experience as a PCA in Regis Aged Care > > (d) 6 months' experience as PCW in Arcare Home Care > > (e) 1 year's experience as a PCA at CaSPA Care > > (f) Currently working as a Disability Support Worker

4. The Respondent contends that the provisional audit report by AVA Certification Pty Ltd (audit report) contains limited information regarding Ms Sharma's qualifications, skills and experience and does not contain the level of detail expected of an audit report.[32] The Respondent further contends that the deficiencies included the omission of her education providers and completion dates for the obtaining of qualifications as well as specific details regarding her employment history.[33]
5. Following the affirming of the original decision, CBB submitted further information concerning the experience of Ms Sharma which included details of her employment as a personal care assistant at CaSPA Care and Australian Unity and a disability support worker at Call on Clare.[34] It also stated that as the Director of CBB, Ms Sharma brings 'frontline experience and up-to-date training into the leadership and delivery of our services'.[35]
6. In relation to Ms Sharma's qualifications, skills and experience, the Tribunal was assisted by her cross‑examination conducted by Mr Wong. That cross‑examination confirmed that Ms Sharma is the sole director, shareholder and secretary of CBB. A difficulty that arose during this process was Ms Sharma's repeated reference to an 'audit file' which she said contained further details of both her own and Ms Ramos' qualifications, skills and experience.
7. The Respondent's SFIC states CBB's 12 July 2024 email to the Commissioner referred to an 'audit file' to be accessed via an embedded link.[36] Because the file was stored on a shared drive it was inaccessible to the Commission.[37] At that time, the Commission did not follow up the Applicant for access to the folder.[38] However, at the hearing Mr Wong confirmed that the Commissioner had subsequently attempted to retrieve the documents from the auditor and had been informed that they had been destroyed. Mr Wong further confirmed that, during the course of the proceedings, his instructor had emailed Ms Sharma advising that the Commissioner did not have access to the documents and inviting her to provide them. No documents were provided.
8. Cross‑examination also confirmed that no copies of Ms Sharma's qualifications had been provided to the Tribunal. I asked Ms Sharma whether she could give further detail about the documents contained in the audit file. She stated that she had provided the certificates listed in her résumé, together with certificates in manual handling and first aid to the auditor. I gave Ms Sharma several opportunities to provide details of her qualifications, including by asking whether she could recall the registered training organisations from which she had obtained her certificates. Her response remained that she had presented her certificates and training documents to the auditor during the audit, and that she was unaware that the documents could not be accessed.
9. In terms of experience, cross-examination of Ms Sharma confirmed that her experience is largely confined to age care. Under cross-examination, Ms Sharma conceded that she did not have experience in running a disability service provider.
10. I also asked Ms Sharma a number of questions regarding her skills and experience, particularly whether she had provided supports and services to people with disability outside the aged care sector. Although her answers did not provide the level of clarity I sought, I was able to ascertain that her work with Call on Clare spans both the aged care and disability sectors, and that she has obtained some work through relevant "apps" or online platforms.

1. As previously stated at [2], details were provided of Ms Ana Ramos in the 'suitability questions' of Key Personnel section in CBB's application, however no contact details were provided including role and position details.[39]
2. Cross-examination of Ms Sharma about Ms Ramos' involvement with CBB revealed that, while she was involved in the audit of CBB and was listed as an employee on the audit report, she has not worked for nor does she currently work for CBB either as an employee or contractor.
3. CBB's application states Ms Ramos is an enrolled nurse with 21 years' experience and listed a number of relevant certificates.[40] Her experience shows that she has held several positions as a team leader.[41] The further information provided by CBB stated that Ms Ramos has worked in the aged care sector for over two decades starting her career in 2002.[42]
4. At the hearing, Ms Sharma confirmed that she regarded Ms Ramos as part of CBB's Key Personnel. However, important details about Ms Ramos' position and role within CBB, which are necessary to assess her suitability to be involved in the provision of supports or services, have not been provided. It is also unclear whether the suitability questions in the application related to Ms Ramos. Further, there is no evidence before the Tribunal verifying her qualifications, nor is there evidence that she has provided supports or services to people with disability.
5. I suggest that, in any future applications to the Commissioner, the Applicant clearly identifies the extent of Ms Ramos' involvement in CBB so that her suitability as key personnel can be properly assessed.

Conclusion on qualifications, skills and experience

1. The Respondent submits that it is not necessary for a service provider to be registered before they start providing disability supports and services under the NDIS Act.[43] At the hearing, in summing up Mr Wong submitted that it could be said that the registration scheme is mandatory for services which could be described as complex or specialist. Mr Wong also submitted for this reason the NDIS Registration Process envisages that applicants will have had experience in providing supports and service to people with disability.
2. At the hearing, Ms Sharma submitted that it has been difficult for her to gain relevant experience because prospective clients who have approached her require services that must be delivered by a registered provider. While I understand that Ms Sharma considers this to place her in a 'catch‑22' situation, it remains concerning that, despite the company having been registered for approximately two years, her evidence was that it has not provided any services and currently has no clients.
3. On the evidence before the Tribunal, Ms Sharma appears to have experience in the aged care sector, which may be transferable to the NDIS context.
4. The Tribunal has previously held that, although the fact that a person is an approved NDIS provider is a relevant consideration, it is not, of itself, determinative of whether that person meets the requirements to be an approved aged care provider. [44] I also consider the converse to be the case. While Ms Sharma appears to have significant experience in the aged care sector, it remains necessary to assess her suitability in accordance with the requirements of the relevant NDIS legislative provisions.
5. Ms Sharma appears to have very little direct experience working in the NDIS sector. I do not find Ms Sharma has the requisite relevant experience necessary to mitigate the risk of harm arising from the provision of poor-quality supports and services. As Ms Sharma is the sole director, shareholder and secretary it follows that CBB does not have sufficient experience to be registered.
6. I also found Ms Sharma's oral evidence regarding her qualifications to be inconsistent and evasive. This finding combined with the lack of documentary evidence regarding Ms Sharma's qualification, means I am unable to be satisfied that Ms Sharma has the requisite qualification to be considered suitable to provide supports or services to people with disability. Consequently, I am also unable to be satisfied of CBB's suitability to be a registered NDIS provider.

1. The outcome for Continuity of Supports is that each participant has access to timely and appropriate support without interruption.[45]
2. The Respondent submits that CBB is not suitable because it has not provided satisfactory evidence that continuity of care would be ensured for NDIS participants in the event that Ms Sharma, its sole Key Personnel, is unable to remain in Australia due to her temporary visa.[46]
3. The auditor's comment in the audit report was:[47]

The documentation submitted by the service provider, Caring Beyond Bounds Pty Ltd, reveals their fulfillment of the following requirements pertaining to continuity of support: > > The development of the Continuity of Support Policy and Procedure, ensuring each participant's access to timely and appropriate support without interruption. > > In the event of worker absence or vacancy, the policy includes a plan for continuity of supports, specifying that a suitably qualified and/or experienced person will step in to perform the role, ensuring uninterrupted support for participants. > > The provider ensures that supports are meticulously planned with each participant to meet their specific needs. > > These needs and preferences are documented and shared with workers before their engagement with the participant, guaranteeing that the participant's experience aligns with their expressed preferences. > > In situations where changes or interruptions are inevitable, the policy outlines that alternative arrangements will be communicated to the participant. The provider seeks agreement from the participant regarding the proposed changes or arrangements, ensuring their understanding and consent. > > Additionally, the policy recognizes the significance of disaster preparedness and planning. It articulates that measures are in place to facilitate the continuation of critical supports before, during, and after a disaster, where applicable.

4. Given the oral evidence, I find this audit conclusion surprising.
5. The reconsideration delegate formed the view that the responses provided in the self‑assessment section of the registration form were identical to those submitted in other applications. As these responses formed part of the information conveyed to the approved quality auditor, the delegate considered that this diminished the veracity of the audit report.[48]
6. Accordingly, I compared the responses addressing this practice standard in the initial application with those contained in the self‑assessment report. The responses in the self‑assessment report consist largely of bare assertions and are expressed in generic terms. As with the initial application, the responses may appear adequate in theory; however, it is difficult to envisage how, in practice, the outcome for Continuity of Supports could be achieved given CBB's current organisational structure if Ms Sharma was required to leave Australia.
7. The Applicant's SFIC states that 'CBB holds valid work rights and has an internal Delegation of Authority to ensure seamless operations in the unlikely event the Director is unavailable'.[49]
8. Ms Sharma currently holds a Temporary Graduate (subclass 485) visa.[50] Under cross‑examination, she confirmed that her visa expires in January 2028 and that she hopes to obtain permanent residency. She was not forthcoming about the basis on which she intends to seek permanent residency. She also accepted that the outcome of any such application is uncertain. This uncertainty means that the potential unavailability of CBB's Director in the future is a real risk that would need to be managed.
9. During cross-examination, Ms Sharma strongly rebuked the proposition that if she had to leave Australia due to a visa issue CBB would not be able to continue to operate and as a result its clients would be left without care. She believed that there would be enough time to put in place alternative arrangements and to facilitate this that Ms Ramos has delegated authority to act in her absence.
10. As noted above at [48], Ms Ramos currently holds no formal position within the company. A document titled 'delegation of authority' included in the Applicant's SFIC lacks specificity and appears, at best, of questionable viability. It purports to delegate Ms Sharma's roles and responsibilities, as set out in her job description, to Ms Ramos - and vice versa. There is no policy supporting this delegation to demonstrate how CBB could continue to operate effectively while maintaining appropriate Director accountability.
11. Further, there is no documentary evidence that Ms Ramos would hold any financial or legal authority for CBB, and therefore be able to perform the tasks necessary to ensure CBB's ongoing operation and continuity of care, such as hiring and managing staff, allocating budgets, paying wages and invoices, or entering into contracts. As stated above, Ms Ramos presently holds no position at CBB. The purported 'delegation of authority' therefore appears to exist in name only.
12. I am therefore in agreement with the Respondent there is a very serious risk that people with disability using CBB services could be left vulnerable without continuing supports if Ms Sharma were required to leave Australia. At the hearing, Mr Wong went to lengths to point out that the concern is not about Ms Sharma's visa situation per se but about the impact her visa situation has on the ability of CBB to provide and ensure ongoing care for its clients.
13. I find that the impact of Ms Sharma's visa status gives rise to a significant risk and the controls CBB have in place to manage that risk are, at present, far from adequate.

1. The Applicant has requested the Tribunal, in the alternative, substitute the Respondent's decision with a decision granting CBB registration subject to a condition of a post-commencement audit to verify compliance and service quality.
2. The difficulty with this proposal is that I am first required to be satisfied that CBB meets the relevant requirements under s 73E of the NDIS Act. In doing so I am obliged to consider the factors set out in the NDIS Registration Rules, including any other relevant matters.
3. I have determined that relevant considerations under rr 9(2)(i) and 10(2)(h) include an applicant's ability to maintain continuity of care for NDIS participants and their possession of the qualifications, skills and experience necessary to ensure the delivery of safe and quality supports and services. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that Ms Sharma - and therefore CBB - can ensure these matters. I am therefore unable to be satisfied that the Applicant is suitable to provide supports or services to people with disability. As a result, the discretion available to me to grant registration under s 73E(1) of the NDIS Act is not enlivened.
4. My decision does not preclude CBB making a new application for registration in the future applying the learnings gained from this application process.

[5] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [3].

[9] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at [12].

[13] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [9].

[14] Applicant's Supplementary Submission at [2].

[15] Applicant's Supplementary Submission at [11]-[12].

[16] Applicant's Supplementary Submission at [24].

[17] Applicant's Supplementary Submission at [16]-[17].

[18] Applicant's Supplementary Submission at [18]-[20].

[19] Applicant's Supplementary Submission at [23].

[20] Applicant's Supplementary Submission at [25].

[21] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [12].

[22] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [13].

[23] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [14].

[24] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [15].

[25] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [18].

[26] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [20].

[43] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [8].

[44] AussieCare Foundation Pty Ltd and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner [2023] AATA 2220 at [100].

[45] Core module: Provider governance and operational management | NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, accessed 4 December 2025.

[46] Respondent's Supplementary Submissions at [18].