"(a) Gills College did not implement a training and assessment strategy to enable each student to meet the requirements for each unit of competency in which they enrolled.

(b) Gills College did not have sufficient facilities, whether physical or virtual, and equipment to accommodate and support the number of learners undertaking the training and assessment at each delivery location.

(c) Gills College did not demonstrate it had a system in place to ensure all trainers and assessors were suitable qualified or experienced.

(d) Gills College did not implement an assessment system that ensured assessment complied with the requirements of the relevant training package and is conducted in accordance with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence.

(e) Gills College did not conduct adequate assessment or ensure that only students who have fully demonstrated competence against all training package requirements have been issued with certification and captured consistent and accurate information about students and training outcomes.

(f) Students had been issued certification via recognition of prior learning (RPL) although the provider denied having conducted any RPL assessment during the period of issuance.

(g) Students denied they had studied with the provider at all, although the provider's student management system said it had issued certification to the students.

(h) Students completed qualifications via RPL and said they had not attended classes or undertaken a work placement and were told by the provider it was not necessary to attend classes."[4]

1. The findings and evidence in sub-paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) were generic to the body of Gills College students who had been awarded VET qualifications and were not necessarily said by ASQA to be applicable in Mr Ekeh's case.
2. On 19 December 2024, Mr Ekeh applied for review of the Reviewable Decision.[5] He also applied for a stay of the Reviewable Decision under s.32(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).[6]
3. On 13 January 2025, the Tribunal ordered that the Reviewable Decision be stayed on an interim basis until 17 January 2025 (interim stay order).
4. On 27 March 2025, the Tribunal refused Mr Ekeh's application for a stay of the Reviewable Decision.[7]

1. The objects of the NVR Act are set out in section 2A of the NVR Act:

(a) to provide for national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET); and

(i) quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and

(ii) Australia's reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and

(d) to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia's social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population; and

(e) to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and

(f) to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET.

1. Protection of the public is a central objective of the NVR Act. It is undeniable that persons working in the aged care sector are providing services to potentially very vulnerable people. Accordingly, it is in the public interest that persons working in the aged care sector are suitably trained and qualified to care for those vulnerable elderly people.
2. To achieve that protective purpose, a standards-based quality framework is to be used to regulate VET, and the NVR Act is to be used to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of the VET which is provided.
3. The NVR Act provides for the registration of RTOs and permits standards to be made for the RTOs under subsection 185(1) of the NVR Act. The relevant standards are the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 (2015 Standards). Compliance, under section 22 of the NVR Act, with both the 2015 Standards and the Data Provision Requirements[8] (DPR Requirements) is a condition of Gills College being granted registration as an "NVR registered training organisation."[9]
4. In compliance with the 2015 Standards, Gills College was required, by Standard 1, to have training and assessment strategies and practice which meet industry and learner needs and are consistent with the requirements of VET accredited courses. The requirements as to the assessment of students are set out in clause 1.8 of the 2015 Standards read together with the Principles of Assessment contained in Table 1.8-1 and The Rules of Evidence contained in Table 1.8-2.
5. Under the Rules of Evidence, Gills College, as an assessor, must be assured that the assessment of Mr Ekeh, as a learner, meets the following requirements:

"Validity: The assessor is assured that the learner has the skills, knowledge and attributes as described in the module or unit of competency and associated assessment requirements.

Sufficiency: The assessor is assured that the quality, quantity and relevance of the assessment evidence enables a judgment to be made of the learner's competency.

Authenticity: The assessor is assured that the evidence presented for the assessment is the learner's own work.

Currency: The assessor is assured that the assessment evidence demonstrates current competency. This requires the assessment evidence to be from the present or the very recent past."

1. Clause 7.5 of the 2015 Standards requires Gills College to provide accurate and correct information as is required by the DPR Requirements. The relevant DPR Requirements are contained in the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Data Protection Requirements) Instrument 2020 (2020 DPRs).
2. The 2020 DPRs require Gills College to record and report on the students enrolled with them in VET courses, including their courses, units of activity and qualifications completed in accordance with the Australian Vocational Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard (AVETMISS) for VET providers.
3. The AVETMISS data is used to report total VET activities to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) by the end of February each year. If a VET provider has ceased their registration, complete and up to date AVETMISS data needs to be available to the NCVER. It follows that an RTO like Gills College must have student management systems which are capable of recording (and can be used to report) student data in accordance with the AVETMISS to the NCVER.[10]
4. Clause 8.4 of the 2015 Standards requires Gills College to make an Annual Declaration to ASQA on its compliance with the Standard. The making of the declaration required Gills College to disclose to ASQA the student management system used by it to capture AVETMISS data.[11]
5. The cancellation of the Qualification was made under ss. 56(1)(a) and 56(1)(d) of the NVR Act, which relevantly read:

"56 National VET Regulator may cancel VET qualifications and VET statements of attainment

(1) The National VET Regulator may cancel a VET qualification or VET statement of attainment issued to a person by an NVR registered training organisation or former registered training organisation if the Regulator is satisfied on reasonable grounds that:

(a) the organisation did not provide, or arrange for another person to provide, all or part of the assessment necessary for the person to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for:

(ii) the units of competency or modules specified in the statement; or...

(d) it is appropriate, in all the circumstances, because of action the Regulator has taken, or is taking, in relation to: ...

(ii) the organisation, in respect of the VET course, or part of the VET course, to which the qualification relates; ..."

1. The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Qualification issued to Mr Ekeh by Gills College should be cancelled under section 56 of the NVR Act. The questions to be answered by the Tribunal in determining this issue are the following:

(a) "Is the Tribunal satisfied on reasonable grounds that Gills College did not provide, or arrange for another person to provide, all or part of the assessment necessary for [Mr Ekeh] to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for the [Qualification] issued to [Mr Ekeh] by Gills College"[12] (s.56(1)(a) NVR Act question);

(b) "Is the Tribunal satisfied on reasonable grounds that it is appropriate to cancel the [Qualification], in all the circumstances, because of the action that [ASQA] has taken, or is taking, in relation to Gills College in respect of the courses to which the Qualification relates?"[13] (s.56(1)(d) NVR Act question); and

(c) "Should the Tribunal cancel the [Qualification] or, notwithstanding its satisfaction that it is appropriate to cancel the [Qualification], should it not do so in its discretion?"[14] (discretion question).

1. In May 2023, and on 28 February 2024, Gills College made an Annual Declaration on Compliance, in which it declared on each occasion that the student management system it had used to capture AVETMISS data over the previous 12 months was "aXcelerate" (aXcelerate).
2. On 30 July 2024, ASQA notified Gills College that it was conducting a compliance audit and sought information including a summary of student enrolments and completions for the previous 24 months and details of the student management systems which Gills College was using.
3. On 31 July 2024, Gills College applied to ASQA to remove training courses for certain VET qualifications from its scope of registration, one of which was CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support (the VET course which is the subject of the Qualification).
4. On 16 August 2024, ASQA received documents from "WeWorkBook" (WeWorkBook) (an alternative student management system to aXcelerate), in response to ASQA's request for information dated 15 August 2024, which showed that the owner of Gills College, Dr Gill, had entered into a contract for services with WeWorkBook on 13 February 2023.Those documents revealed that extensive data in relation to students at Gills College was being managed on the WeWorkBook student management system.
5. The fact that there was a student management system other than aXcelerate in operation was contrary to the information declared by Gills College in its Annual Declaration on Compliance dated 28 February 2024. It was an issue for Mr Ekeh in that the only record of Mr Ekeh's enrolment at Gill's College was on WeWorkBook.[15] Mr Ekeh's name did not appear in the aXcelerate student management system from which Gills College had been reporting to ASQA.
6. The evidence of Mr Kapur, the former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Gills College, is that when he completed the Annual Declaration on Compliance dated 28 February 2024, he was unaware that any student management system other than aXcelerate was being used by Gills College. Mr Kapur only became aware of the use by Gills College of the WeWorkBook student management system in the course of being interviewed by Ms Stevenson of ASQA on 10 October 2024.[16]
7. Following the 10 October 2024 interview with Ms Stevenson, Mr Kapur unsuccessfully sought an explanation of the situation concerning WeWorkBook from Dr Gill. On 16 October 2024, Mr Kapur says that he was instructed by Dr Gill to complete the process for withdrawing Gills College's registration by 24 October 2024. On 21 October 2024, Mr Kapur resigned as CEO of Gills College.[17]
8. By 21 November 2024, ASQA had implemented the College Cancellation Decision. In making that decision, ASQA was satisfied that Gills College had:

(a) not complied with the conditions of registration under sections 21, 22, 22A, 23, 24 and 27 of the NVR Act; and

(b) not met clauses 1.1, 1.3, 1.8, 1.13, 1.14, 1.17, 1.18, 3.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.5, 8.1, 8.3, and 8.5 of the 2015 Standards.[18]

1. The hearing in this matter was held on 20 October 2025. Mr Ekeh was self-represented and ASQA was represented by Mr C Tran of counsel.
2. Ms Ekeh relied at the hearing on his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 6 August 2025[19] (Applicant's SFIC). Mr Ekeh gave evidence on his own behalf, and he was cross examined.
3. ASQA relied at the hearing on its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 9 July 2025[20] (Respondent's SFIC). ASQA also read and relied upon the following witness statements:

(a) Ms Lea Stevenson (Ms Stevenson) (Acting Assistant Director of Compliance and Enforcement at ASQA) dated 27 June 2025[21] (Stevenson Statement).

(b) Mr Martijn Broere (Mr Broere) (Assistant Director of Risk Analytics and Data Intelligence at ASQA) dated 26 June 2025[22] (Broere Statement).

(c) Mr Siddharth Kapur (Mr Kapur) (former Chief Operating Officer and CEO of Gills College) dated 30 June 2025[23] (Kapur Statement). and

(d) Ms Anne Wunsch (Ms Wunsch) (Executive Director, Assessment and Early Remediation, Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission) dated 30 June 2025[24] (Wunsch Statement).

1. Mr Tran read each of the Stevenson, Broere, Kapur and Wunsch Statements into evidence. Mr Ekeh elected not to cross examine ASQA's witnesses and none of ASQA's witnesses were required to give oral evidence before the Tribunal.

1. The main factual matters arising from the Applicant's SFIC can be summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Ekeh applied to Gills College for the Qualification in early 2023 based on his volunteer work in church vocation activities.[25]

(b) On 26 February 2023, Mr Ekeh completed a four-hour online training session (conducted by Gills Consulting Associates). The training covered first aid, CPR and manual handling and was said by Mr Ekeh to be part of the RPL process.[26]

(c) In the period from 13 March 2023 to 3 April 2023, Mr Ekeh completed a 120-hour work placement with Nazareth Care Tamworth (Nazareth Care), during which placement he performed a range of tasks "such as personal care routines, mobility assistance, feeding, documentation, etc, as required for the [Q]ualification".[27]

(d) On 11 April 2023, Mr Ekeh submitted his completed placement logbook (Logbook) to Gills Consulting Associates and was issued by Gills College with a certificate for completion of the Qualification.[28] Certificates were also issued by Gills College to Mr Ekeh on that date for his attendance at each of the First Aid and Manual Handling Training courses (referred to in (b) above).[29]

(e) Nazareth Care has employed Mr Ekeh since 5 April 2023, based on his performance during his placement and his obtaining of the Qualification.[30]

(f) Since commencing employment with Nazareth Care, Mr Ekeh has been provided with ongoing training and online assessment through Altura Learning on a range of aged care and other topics. The Altura Learning training modules completed by Mr Ekeh for aged care are the following:

(i) Code of Conduct for Aged Care (completed 20 April 2023).[31]

(ii) Abuse, Unexplained Absences and SIRS (completed 1 June 2023).[32]

(iii) Documenting in a Care Environment (completed 2 June 2023).[33]

(iv) End of Life Care: Symptom Management (completed 21 July 2023).[34]

(v) Responding to Pain: Residential (completed 26 July 2023).[35]

(vi) Recognising and Assessing Pain: Residential (completed 26 July 2023).[36]

(vii) WHS: Managing Workplace Pressure (completed 31 August 2024).[37]

(viii) Dementia: De-Escalation Strategies (completed 31 August 2024).[38]

(ix) Emotional Intelligence (completed 1 September 2024).[39]

(x) Promoting Good Mental Health for the Older Person (completed 3 April 2025).[40]

(xi) Dementia; Engaging the Person in Meaningful Activities (completed 3 April 2025).[41] and

(xii) Dysphagia: Awareness and Support of Swallowing Difficulties (completed 18 July 2025).[42]

(g) Mr Ekeh has also recently undertaken some additional training at Nazareth Care concerning dementia related care comprising:

(i) BPSD: Responding to Behavioural Symptoms of Dementia (completed 18 July 2025).[43]

(ii) Dementia: Understanding and Responding to BPSD (completed 18 July 2025.[44]

1. The key points which emerged from Mr Ekeh's cross examination can be summarised as follows:

(a) The Altura Learning training was provided by Nazareth Care to its employees and was delivered by means of on-line modules which comprised video lectures in which learners are taken through the relevant practical steps by industry experts. Questions are completed by module recipients at the end of each module.

(b) Gills College provided 4 hours of training in First Aid and Manual Handling training in a workshop format. No name was given to this training and no assessment of it was provided by Gills College. This training was the only training provided by Gills College to Mr Ekeh before Mr Ekeh commenced his placement with Nazareth Care.

(c) Gills College asked Mr Ekeh to complete the NDIS module entitled "'Quality Safety and You'--NDIS Worker Orientation Module." Mr Ekeh stated that he had previously completed that module.

(d) At the time of his enrolment at Gills College, Mr Ekeh presented his degree certificate and enrolment application. No assessment of his prior learning or aged care experience was conducted by Gills College.

(e) Mr Ekeh's placement with Nazareth Care involved him being assigned to an existing employee and following them around and learning how to complete tasks on the job. The normal working day was from 7 am - 3pm and he reported for sign off at the end of the working day, when his Logbook would be completed.

(f) Nazareth Care provided their own orientation program at the commencement of the placement and their own training program (some during the placement and subsequently on a regular and ongoing basis). and

(g) Mr Ekeh was asked if he first approached Gills College in November 2022, and his evidence was that the approach was through an agent as he did not first arrive in Australia until January 2023.

1. ASQA presented evidence from each of Ms Stevenson, Mr Broere, Mr Kapur and Ms Wunsch. A summary of the key points arising from the evidence of these witnesses is set out below.

1. Ms Stevenson stated that she is an Assistant Director of Compliance and Enforcement at ASQA. Ms Stevenson had responsibility at ASQA for the compliance audit undertaken at Gills College, which commenced on 30 July 2024.[45]
2. The Stevenson statement describes the audit process followed by ASQA, which involved a sample of the training courses offered by Gills College taken from the information provided by Gills College at the beginning of the audit process. The sample did not include qualifications in ageing support, early childhood education, individual support or disability support, because Gills College had applied to remove the CHC Community Services training packages from its offering in February 2024.[46]
3. The Stevenson Statement further explained that for a training course such as the Qualification, an RTO such as Gills College would be expected to have a training and assessment strategy (TAS) for that course. The TAS "is a coordinated set of documents, policies and procedures which describes a system for delivering training and assessment."[47]
4. The components of a TAS would include, at a minimum, the following things:

(a) a description of the training product, identifying the core and elective units of competency and demonstrating a plan for the learner to meet the requirements of each unit of competency.

(c) a breakdown of how each unit of competency will be delivered and assessed.

A detailed description of the components of a TAS is set out in paragraph [22] of the Stevenson Statement.[48]

1. Ms Stevenson gave evidence at the hearing that there were significant discrepancies in the student management reporting system information declared by Gills College (based on aXcelerate data) and the unreported student information recorded on the WeWorkBook system. Those discrepancies raised a line of enquiry for ASQA. In respect of Mr Ekeh, ASQA had not seen a TAS for the Qualification and it was not otherwise satisfied as to the assessment provided by Gills College for the course work or that the placement had provided Mr Ekeh with suitable supervision to give him the necessary exposure across the 18 units of competency making up the Qualification.

1. Mr Broere stated that he is the Assistant Director of Risk Analysis and Data Intelligence at ASQA. Mr Broere's evidence concerned the work he had undertaken in analysing the Gills College student management records from 2023 and 2024.
2. An unusual feature of the student record management systems at Gills College is that there were two separate student record management systems in operation in those years. The first was referred to as the aXcelerate system, which was used for reporting purposes to ASQA. The second was the WeWorkBook system which was operating entirely separately from aXcelerate and which was a system which ASQA had only became aware of as the result of the audit investigation of Gills College.
3. Mr Broere gave evidence concerning the data capture on the WeWorkBook system. The points which emerged from that evidence were that Dr Gill was the single and only user of the WeWorkBook system[49] and that there had been "bulk updating" or batching of information uploaded onto WeWorkBook,[50] both matters which raised some concerns as to the quality of the information recorded on the system.
4. Mr Broere's evidence was that WeWorkBook was not being used in the typical manner one would expect because there was extensive evidence of student records being overwritten and large parts of the records being updated at one time. So far as information about Mr Ekeh was available on WeWorkBook, it purported to show that classroom-based training had taken place.

1. Reference has been made earlier to the evidence of Mr Kapur, the former CEO of Gills College. The key points which arose from the Kapur Statement were:

(a) Mr Kapur commenced his employment at Gills College on 27 September 2023 as Chief Operations Officer. In that role, he was responsible for the Gills College training materials including the TAS. There were many gaps in the training materials and he "worked tirelessly" to try to fill those gaps.[51]

(b) Mr Kapur moved to the CEO role in November 2023, but his responsibilities did not change greatly from when he had been Head of Operations. Importantly, he did not have access to any of Gills College's financial information or bank accounts.[52]

(c) The only student management system which Mr Kapur had access to throughout the period of his employment with Gills College was aXcelerate.[53]

(d) Mr Kapur was not aware that any training was being delivered by Gills College towards qualifications under the CHC Community Services Training Program (including courses for VET qualifications in individual care). To the extent that Mr Kapur could ascertain from aXcelerate that qualifications of this kind had previously been obtained by Gills College students, that had occurred prior to his commencing employment at Gills College.[54] and

(e) These gaps in Mr Kapur's knowledge had an obvious impact on the likely accuracy of the documents completed, or statements made, by him as CEO on behalf of Gills College, including:

(ii) the annual Declarations on Compliance prepared for ASQA.

(iii) his statement to Ms Stevenson during the audit assessment interview on 10 October 2024, when he informed her that Gills College did not conduct RPL assessments [55]

1. Ms Wunsch states that she is the Executive Director of the Assessment and Early Remediation team at the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The Wunsch Statement was prepared for the purpose of providing the Tribunal with information about the qualifications held by aged care workers.
2. The key points which arose from the Wunsch Statement were:

(a) There are currently no minimum requirements which aged care workers must meet before they can be employed.[56]

(b) The requirement that many aged care providers impose on their employees is that they obtain the Certificate III in Individual Support as a means of provider being able to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of Standard 7 of the Quality of Care Principles made by the Minister under the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Act 2018 (Cth).[57]

(c) As aged care workers are providing services to vulnerable people, Ms Wunsch states:

"I consider that it is critical that, where aged care workers are employed on the basis of [the Qualification], employers are able to rely on that qualification as evidencing that the worker possesses the skills necessary to work in the sector."[58]

(d) In an industry sector where many workers are unqualified, it is important that recipients of care from an aged care worker who purports to be qualified can rely upon that qualification.[59]

1. Mr Ekeh's primary submission is that the Reviewable Decision is flawed by reason of ASQA's "[f]ailure to consider my documented competence through a 120-hour work placement, 20 months of employment as a qualified PCA, and ongoing Altura Learning assessments."[60]
2. Mr Ekeh contends that the effect of the Reviewable Decision has been to cause him disproportionate harm when weighed against the public interest considerations said to favour cancellation of the Qualification. The harm includes the financial impact upon him and his family in only being able to be paid at an unqualified PCA rate, emotional distress and the barrier he faces to future employment opportunities caused by not holding, and not being able to rely upon, the Qualification.[61]
3. Mr Ekeh contends that despite Gills College's apparent non-compliance with the 2015 Standards and the 2020 DPRs, his evidence demonstrates that he meets the requirements for the Qualification because:

(a) His placement at Nazareth Care involved tasks which align with units of competency in the Qualification, verified by the Logbook.

(b) Nazareth Care has continued his employment since April 2023, confirming his competence by having him perform tasks consistently with the competencies required by the Qualification.

(c) Mr Ekeh's competence is further verified by his successful completion of the Altura Learning training modules and online assessment. and

(d) Mr Ekeh's lodgement of the Logbook with Gill's College and Gill's College issuing of the certificate for the Qualification suggests that Gills College carried out some assessment.

1. In short, Mr Ekeh submits that he has sufficient independent evidence of his competence (sufficient to support being awarded the Qualification), even allowing for the issues around the WeWorkBook student management database.[62]
2. It follows that even if the Tribunal is against Mr Ekeh on the s.56(1)(a) NVR Act question and the s.56(1)(d) NVR Act question, it should exercise its discretion under subsection 56(1) of the NVR Act not to cancel the Qualification.
3. Mr Ekeh rejects ASQA's contention that the Tribunal cannot reassess his competencies, arguing that the Tribunal can evaluate the evidence which is available and determine the application for review by answering the discretion question in his favour. Alternatively, if the discretion question cannot be answered in his favour, Mr Ekeh requests the Tribunal to remit the decision to ASQA for reconsideration, with a direction to assess Mr Ekeh's evidence of competence.[63]

1. On the s.56(1)(a) NVR Act question, ASQA contends that there are reasonable grounds for the Tribunal to be satisfied that Gills College did not provide all or part of the assessment necessary for Mr Ekeh to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for the Qualification.[64]
2. First, the material upon which ASQA based the College Cancellation Decision supports the conclusion that students who were only recorded on the WeWorkBook system did not receive appropriate assessment. Mr Ekeh's details are only recorded on the WeWorkBook system, and the inference is that he did not undergo appropriate assessment by Gills College to support the awarding of the Qualification.[65]
3. That inference is supported by the way Gills College recorded the details of the enrolment and completion of units by students (including Mr Ekeh) on WeWorkBook. The ASQA compliance audit showed the WeWorkBook student records to be deficient because the sample of students audited revealed that they had not received the assessment necessary to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies needed to support the qualifications awarded to them by Gills College. The inference is further supported by the lack of evidence that there was any assessment of material submitted by Mr Ekeh before the Qualification was issued on 11 April 2023.[66]
4. Secondly, Gills College's conduct should be treated as an admission that students like Mr Ekeh who were only recorded on the WeWorkBook system, did not receive the necessary assessment to achieve the required learning outcomes or competencies for their qualification. ASQA points to Mr Kapur's evidence about the false Declaration on Compliance and his lack of knowledge that the WeWorkBook system was being used at all.[67]
5. Thirdly, by reason of Mr Kapur's assertion that Gills College did not conduct RPL assessment and the lack of evidence that Gills College had a TAS in place for RPL, to the extent that the Qualification was issued for an RPL assessment there must be real doubt that any such assessment took place.[68]
6. Fourthly, Mr Ekeh has been unable to produce any documentary evidence of his course engagement having been the subject of an RPL assessment by Gills College. This lack of evidence makes it very difficult to determine whether Gills College conducted an RPL assessment.[69] ASQA submits on this point:

"While it is not disputed that [Mr Ekeh] did in fact attend a 120-hour placement at Nazareth Care, there is no evidence that [Mr Ekeh's] work placement was reviewed or assessed by Gills College. In particular, there is no evidence to confirm that Gills College assessed whether [Mr Ekeh] demonstrated the required "knowledge evidence" for the units of competency which make up his qualification during the placement at Nazareth Care. Further, [Mr Ekeh's] assertion that he otherwise obtained his qualification via RPL and by attending a four-hour first aid course is inconsistent with [the WeWorkBook record], which indicates that [Mr Ekeh] enrolled in, and completed, 18 units of competency on 11 April 2023."[70]

1. Fifthly, ASQA's compliance audit of Gills College for the sampled training courses found deficiencies in both the training and assessment provided by Gills College in the audit sample. It is reasonable to conclude that similar deficiencies existed in respect of the other training courses offered by Gills College.[71]
2. On the s.56(1)(d) NVR Act question, ASQA contends that there are reasonable grounds for the Tribunal to be satisfied that it is appropriate, in all the circumstances, to cancel the Qualification because of the action which ASQA has taken in relation to Gills College, the RTO which issued the Qualification, and in relation to the course to which the Qualification relates.[72]
3. ASQA says that it has made the College Cancellation Decision because of the failure of Gills College to comply with numerous obligations. The outcome has been that Gills College's registration under the NVR Act and the ESOS Act has been cancelled. The public interest considerations in cancelling the qualifications issued by a de-registered RTO, which are relevant to the discretion question, are also relevant to this question.[73]
4. On the discretion question concerning the proper exercise of the discretion whether to cancel the Qualification under subsection 56(1) of the NVR Act, ASQA contends that there is no discretionary reason not to cancel the Qualification. The public interest is said by ASQA to strongly favour the exercise of the discretion in favour of cancelling the Qualification.[74]
5. The nature and importance of that public interest is identified by ASQA in the following terms:

"There is a significant public interest in ensuring the safety, health, wellbeing and quality of life of vulnerable persons who rely on support workers or carers to assist with their daily activities.

[ASQA] submits that risks to the safety of and potential harm to support or care recipients ought to be the paramount consideration for the Tribunal in deciding whether to grant the relief."[75]

1. The Respondent's Submissions refer to the public interest, identified in the Tribunal's decision in Site Skills Group Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority[76] (Site Skills) in ensuring that people who hold a qualification issued by an RTO "have been properly trained to a high standard."[77]
2. The Tribunal in Site Skills placed great emphasis on the importance of the regulation of RTOs, which provide the training needed to ensure that the VET Qualifications issued by the RTO are a true reflection of competency. The Tribunal went on to state:

"... it is important that there is a minimum standard required to receive a particular qualification; that there is a rigorous assessment process; and that there is consistency in those standards throughout the country."[78]

1. ASQA also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Sydney Training Academy Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority,[79] in which the Tribunal noted the public interest in ensuring that all RTO's meet all VET requirements so that consumers, employers and others can safely rely on the VET Qualifications issued by those RTOs. The Tribunal stated:

"... there is a major public interest in ensuring that all RTOs are fully compliant with VET requirements, especially where issues of safety (e.g. safety on building sites; first aid; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; child welfare; the provision of aged care) are concerned and these must be given primary consideration."[80]

1. Finally, ASQA submits that were the Tribunal to exercise its discretion not to cancel the Qualification, that would effectively constitute a decision to allow Mr Ekeh to maintain the Qualification where there is no evidence that a competent body has assessed whether Mr Ekeh has the requisite skills and competencies required of a person holding a Certificate III in Individual Support.
2. ASQA advances the following contentions in support of this submission:

(a) ASQA's responsibilities as the National VET Regulator are set out in section 157 of the NVR Act. Whilst those functions do include conducting compliance audits of NVR registered training organisations[81], they do not extend to the conduct of assessments of an individual student's competencies to hold a VET Qualification (including assessment by RPL).[82]

(b) Neither the NVR Act nor the Standards for VET Regulators 2015 (Cth) (Regulators Standards), contemplate that ASQA would be required to perform such assessments of a student's competencies for the purposes of exercising the subsection 56(1) discretion.[83] and

(c) Similarly, neither the NVR Act nor the Regulator Standards contemplate that ASQA has the resources, qualifications or expertise to carry out an RPL pathway assessment of a student's skills, knowledge and experience mapped to the units of competency which make up the relevant VET Qualification.[84]

1. The reasoning above, which would prevent ASQA from exercising the subsection 56(1) discretion not to cancel the Qualification, is said by ASQA to apply in equal measure to the Tribunal as the decision maker in the present proceeding.
2. Two additional matters were addressed by counsel for ASQA in his closing submissions. The first concerned Mr Ekeh's reliance upon the ongoing Altura Learning training and assessment he had completed at Nazareth Care, as demonstrating his competence to hold the Qualification. The second related to Mr Ekeh's submission that the Tribunal should consider remitting the Reviewable Decision to ASQA for reconsideration, with a direction to assess the evidence of Mr Ekeh's competence.
3. On the first matter, the Tribunal was taken to Standard 2 in the 2015 Standards,[85] which provides that "The operations of the RTO are quality assured." The Context for Standard 2 relevantly provides:

"The RTO is ultimately responsible for ensuring quality training and assessment within their organisation and scope of registration, regardless of any third party arrangements where training and/or assessment is delivered on their behalf. This includes where the RTO subcontracts the delivery of services to a third party... but the AQF certification documentation will be issued by the RTO. The RTO must have a written agreement with any party that delivers services on its behalf."

Clauses 2.3 and 2.4 of the 2015 Standards, provide:

"2.3 The RTO ensures that where services are provided on its behalf by a third party the provision of those services is the subject of a written agreement.

2.4 The RTO has sufficient strategies and resources to systematically monitor any services delivered on its behalf, and uses these to ensure that the services delivered comply with these Standards at all times."

1. In submitting that the requirements of clauses 2.3 and 2.4 were not satisfied, ASQA said that there was no subcontracting arrangement and no written agreement in place between Gills College and Nazareth Care as to the delivery by the latter of the relevant quality assured training and assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal would not be satisfied that the Altura Learning modules provided the training and assessment required to meet the learning outcomes and competencies required for the Qualification.
2. ASQA made it clear that it did not dispute that Mr Ekeh had completed the Altura Learning training, but says that the Altura Training modules do not correspond with the competency units in the Qualification. In circumstances where Gills College had not provided the required training/assessment, it was not open to Mr Ekeh to simply seek to substitute the Altura Learning training/assessment for that which Gills College had failed to provide.
3. On the second matter, ASQA submitted that it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to remit the matter to it for reconsideration, as there was simply too wide a gulf between what Gills College should have done as an RTO with respect to the Qualification and what it did, to make that possible remedy viable. This suggested remedy would run contrary to the role contemplated for ASQA under the legislative regime (see paragraph [70] above). Rather, the appropriate course for Mr Ekeh was to apply to another RTO to obtain the Qualification via RPL afresh, as ASQA cannot itself assess Mr Ekeh's competencies.

1. This is a case where serious issues have arisen concerning the registration of Gills College (the VET provider of the Qualification) leading to the College Cancellation Decision.
2. It appears from the evidence that Gills College had at the relevant times been operating two student administration systems, a fact which only emerged as the result of an ASQA compliance audit. The larger, and previously undisclosed, student administration system operated on the WeWorkBook system has a systemic issue in that many of the VET qualifications issued by Gills College to students shown as enrolled on the WeWorkBook system appear to have been issued in the absence of appropriate training and assessment.
3. In those circumstances, the need for documentary evidence of the actual training and assessment provided to Mr Ekeh, a student whose enrolment only appears in the WeWorkBook system, is important.
4. At the request of ASQA on 14 May 2025, the Tribunal issued a summons to produce documents addressed to Gills College, which sought the following documents pertaining to the Qualification:

"1. All documents relating to the delivery of the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support to Ugochukwu Ekeh...student ID number... including:

(a) All communications between Gills College and Ugochukwu Ekeh.

(c) Recognition of prior learning kits completed by Ugochukwu Ekeh.

(d) All records of training delivered to Ugochukwu Ekeh.

(e) All records relating to vocational work placements completed by Ugochukwu Ekeh (if any).

(f) All records of assessment against the units of competency comprising the CHC33015 Certificate III in Ageing Support conducted in relation to Ugochukwu Ekeh, including any assessment using recognition of prior learning.

2. All records of assessment relating to the training and assessment strategies for the CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support.

3. All documents relating to assessors for CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support."

1. Gills College did not produce any documentation in response to the Summons.
2. Mr Ekeh has provided some documentary evidence of relevance to the Qualification. The Tribunal has noted the evidence of the ongoing training/assessment provided to Mr Ekeh by Nazareth Care through the Altura Learning training modules.
3. Nazareth Care has also produced documents under summons which included a letter dated 17 December 2024 confirming that Mr Ekeh completed a 120-hour work placement at Nazareth Care in support of obtaining the Qualification.[86]
4. Whilst the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence as to Mr Ekeh having successfully completed his placement and having received some feedback in respect of that placement, there is a complete lack of documentary evidence concerning the carrying out of an RPL assessment by Gills College in respect of the Qualification.
5. To enable the Tribunal to address whether Mr Ekeh can demonstrate to its satisfaction that he has the required competencies for the Qualification, I have given close consideration to the Qualification Description for CHC33015 Certificate III in Individual Support,[87] the list of the Altura Learning training modules completed by Mr Ekeh (see paragraph [34(f)] above) and the list of competency units in the Qualification (see Appendix A to these Reasons).
6. The Tribunal has observed little to no direct overlap in the subject matter titles of the Altura Learning training modules and the competency units listed for the Qualification. The evidence which is before the Tribunal does not enable any deeper analysis of the content of individual Altura Learning training modules or Qualification competency units of the kind which would be needed to determine the extent of the overlap in substantive content. It follows that the Tribunal is not persuaded on the evidence before it that the modules on the one hand, and the competency units on the other, are directly comparable let alone substitutable.
7. Mr Ekeh presents as a committed personal care assistant with a range of aged care competencies and skills and the support of Nazareth Care, who have employed him since April 2023. Whilst Mr Ekeh is confident that he has the necessary competencies to hold the Qualification, what is lacking in this matter is evidence from a qualified and independent witness who can verify from their direct observation of Mr Ekeh that he demonstrates the competencies required to hold the Qualification.
8. The Tribunal's decision in Ye and Australian Skills Quality Authority[88] (Ye), provides a recent example of a case in which the discretion, exercisable under subsection 56(1) of the NVR Act, not to cancel a childcare qualification, was exercised in favour of a student at Gills College. The circumstances of the applicant in Ye were exceptional and distinguished her case from other recent student qualification cancellation decisions determined by the Tribunal.[89]
9. The Tribunal in Ye identified four distinguishing features of the applicant's circumstances which made it an exceptional case, which can be summarised as:

(1) There being no risk posed by the applicant to children and the stay of the reviewable decision accordingly not having been opposed.[90]

(2) The earlier partial completion by the applicant of the same qualification as the cancelled qualification at another RTO.[91]

(3) The applicant having worked in childcare for 5 years prior to applying for her Diploma qualification via RPL.[92]

(4) Persuasive evidence having been called from multiple qualified independent witnesses to the effect that the applicant had the necessary competencies to hold the qualification.[93]

1. As to the matter of calling supporting evidence from qualified and independent witnesses, the Tribunal stated:

"The fourth feature is the impressive evidence, strongly supportive of Ms Ye having demonstrated skills and competencies at the required level, given by three senior early childhood educators. Two of these witnesses (Ms Lyra and Ms Smith) have directly observed and supervised Ms Ye in the classroom for more than 12 months. These three witnesses were able, collectively through their respective evidence, to provide, in effect, a persuasive proxy for an independent skills assessment of the kind that would otherwise be important in enabling the Tribunal to form an accurate picture of whether the level of Ms Ye's skills and competencies was at the required level to hold the Qualification."[94]

1. As previously stated, there is no supporting evidence from qualified and independent witnesses testifying as to Mr Ekeh's demonstrated competencies before the Tribunal in the present case.
2. The Tribunal agrees with ASQA's submission that it is not possible to reconcile Mr Ekeh's description of the training and assessment which he says he has received from Nazareth Care or Gills College with Ms Stevenson's evidence as to what the minimum training and assessment requirements are to hold the Qualification. The Tribunal notes in passing that it rejects the possible course of remitting the matter to ASQA for reconsideration as ASQA will be in no better position than the Tribunal has been, on the evidence available, in achieving that reconciliation.
3. Each of the units of competency which comprise the Qualification is accompanied by a detailed written set of requirements which needs to be satisfied for a prospective certificate holder to demonstrate that they have achieved the required competency. For example, competency "CHCCOM005 Communicate and work in health or community services" has an implementation guide[95] which lists Elements and Performance Criteria and the Assessment requirements for the competency.
4. The requirements are prescriptive and detailed. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that Mr Ekeh has received the necessary training and assessment required to achieve this unit of competency, or any of the other 17 units of competency which make up the Qualification.
5. The Tribunal accepts that the potential risk to the safety of aged care recipients in having their care entrusted to people who may not be suitably qualified is critical to the consideration of the public interest in the context of the objects of the NVR Act.
6. The Tribunal in Rozario and Australian Skills Quality Authority[96] (Rozario) recently stated: "As to the NVR Act, when considering the question of public interest ... this legislation is protective. As such, depending on the nature of the qualification, permitting a person not properly qualified to maintain use of certificates and qualifications inappropriately awarded may pose a substantial risk to those who might rely on the person in question being suitably qualified."[97]
7. The Tribunal was also referred by ASQA in its closing submissions to the recent decision of the Tribunal in Neupane and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Neupane).[98] In Neupane, as in the present case, where there is an absence of the evidence which the Tribunal would need to see for it to be satisfied that a student has been provided with the training and assessment necessary to achieve and hold a VET qualification, "allowing the qualification to stand would defeat the purpose of s 56 of the NVR Act and not meet the Objects of the NVR Act."[99] I endorse what is said in the extracted passages of the Rozario and Neupane decisions.
8. It is a regrettable, but unavoidable, consequence of affirming the decision under review that the personal hardship endured by Mr Ekeh (through no fault of his own) cannot be directly ameliorated by the Tribunal. Having regard to the Objects of the NVR Act and having weighed the public interest considerations, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the harm which Mr Ekeh will suffer outweighs the public interest protective considerations which favour cancellation of the Qualification. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that this case is not in the exceptional category of case which supports the exercise of the discretion not to cancel the Qualification.

1. Returning to the issue of whether the Qualification issued to Mr Ekeh by Gills College should be cancelled under section 56 of the NVR Act, the Tribunal answers "yes" to each of the s.56(1)(a) question and the s.56(1)(d) question. The Tribunal also declines to exercise its discretion not to cancel the Qualification in circumstances where it is satisfied, for the reasons given, that cancellation of the Qualification is appropriate.
2. ASQA's decision was the correct decision, and the Reviewable Decision is affirmed.

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr U J Ekeh, Self-represented

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr C Tran, Solicitor, Clayton Utz

CHCDIS001 Contribute to ongoing skills development C

CHCAGE001 Facilitate the empowerment of older people C

CHCHCS001 Provide home and community support services C

CHCCOM005 Communicate and work in health/community C

HLTINF001 Comply with infection prevention/control policies C

CHCDIS003 Support community participation/social inclusion C

CHCDIS007 Facilitate empowerment of people with disability C

CHCDIS002 Follow established person-centred behaviour C

CHCCCS025 Support relationships with carers and families C

HLTWHS002 Follow safe work practices for direct client care C

CHCAGE005 Provide support to people living with dementia C

[1] Certificate for the Qualification, Joint Hearing Bundle (JHB), pages 426 - 427.

[5] T1, JHB, pages 1 - 35. The Reviewable Decision is a reviewable decision under s. 199 of the NVR Act.

[7] Ekeh and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and Procedure) [2025] ARTA 264.

[8] Requirements are set out in section 187 of the NVR Act.

[9] Defined in section 3 of the NVR Act.

[10] Respondent's SFIC, [14] - [17], JHB, page 376.

[11] Respondent's SFIC, [18] - [19], JHB page 376.

[12] Respondent's SFIC, [52.1], JHB, pages 384 - 385.

[13] Respondent's SFIC, [52.2], JHB, page 385.

[14] Respondent's SFIC, [52.3], JHB, page 385.

[16] Kapur Statement, [38], JHB, page 314.

[17] Kapur Statement, [42], JHB, pages 314 - 315.

[18] Respondent's SFIC, [48] - [49], JHB page 382.

[25] Applicant's SFIC, [2.3], JHB, page 401.

[26] Applicant's SFIC, [2.4], JHB, page 401.

[27] Applicant's SFIC, [2.5], JHB, page 401.

[28] Applicant's SFIC, [2.6], JHB, page 402; Logbook, JHB pages 411 - 422; Qualification certificate, JHB, pages 426 - 427.

[30] Applicant's SFIC, [2.7], JHB, page 402; Employer letter dated 17 December 2024, JHB, page 428.

[45] Stevenson Statement, [6], JHB, page 302.

[46] Stevenson Statement, [16], JHB, page 303.

[47] Stevenson Statement, [21], JHB, page 304.

[49] Broere Statement, [11] - [12], JHB, page 292.

[50] Broere Statement, [27], JHB, page 294.

[51] Kapur Statement, [4], [5], JHB, page 309.

[52] Kapur Statement, [7], [10], JHB, page 309.

[53] Kapur Statement, [16], JHB, page 310.

[54] Kapur Statement, [29], JHB, page 312.

[55] Kapur Statement, [18], [22], [24] - [26], [36], [38], JHB, pages 311 - 314.

[56] Wunsch Statement [8], JHB, page 334.

[57] Wunsch Statement [9], JHB, page 334.

[58] Wunsch Statement [11], JHB, page 334.

[59] Wunsch Statement [12], JHB, page 335.

[60] Applicant's SFIC, [1.2.2], JHB, page 400.

[61] Applicant's SFIC, [1.2.3], [2.8], JHB, pages 400, 402.

[62] Applicant's SFIC, [4.2], JHB, pages 404 - 405.

[63] Applicant's SFIC, [5.2], JHB, page 408.

[64] Respondent's SFIC, [53], JHB, page 385.

[65] Respondent's SFIC, [54] - [58], JHB, pages 385 - 386.

[66] Respondent's SFIC, [59] - [60], [62], JHB, pages 386 - 387.

[67] Respondent's SFIC, [63] - [65], JHB, page 387.

[68] Respondent's SFIC, [66] - [68], JHB, pages 387 - 388.

[69] Respondent's SFIC, [70], [72], JHB, page 388.

[70] Respondent's SFIC, [71], JHB, page 388.

[71] Respondent's SFIC, [73], JHB, page 389.

[72] Respondent's SFIC, [74], JHB, page 389.

[73] Respondent's SFIC, [75] - [77], JHB, page 389.

[74] Respondent's SFIC, [79 - [80], JHB, page 389 - 390.

[75] Respondent's SFIC, [81] - [82], JHB, pages 389 - 390.

[76] [2019] AATA 1870.

[77] [2019] AATA 1870, [87].

[78] [2019] AATA 1870, [20].

[79] [2018] AATA 3361.

[80] [2018] AATA 3361, [28(c)].

[82] Respondent's SFIC, [92.1], JHB, page 392.

[83] Respondent's SFIC, [92.2], JHB, page 392.

[84] Respondent's SFIC, [92.3], JHB, pages 392 - 393.

[85] Compilation 3 - issued 1 July 2019, in force in 2023.

[89] For example, Neupane and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2024] ARTA 959, Khadka and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2025] ARTA 2370 and Kaur and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2025] ARTA 2371.