"(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."[5]

1. Based on these findings, ASQA was satisfied that Gills College did not provide Ms Kaur with the training or assessment necessary for her to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for the Qualification. The Tribunal notes that the findings and evidence referred to in sub-paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) above were generic to the body of Gills College students who had been awarded VET qualifications and were not said by ASQA to necessarily be applicable in Ms Kaur's case.
2. On 23 December 2024, Ms Kaur applied for review of the Reviewable Decision.[6] (Review Application) She also applied for a stay of the Reviewable Decision under s.32(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).[7]
3. In her Review Application, Ms Kaur stated the reasons as to why the Reviewable Decision was wrong in the following terms:

"The decision was made erroneously, and I was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the initial intention notice. I will prove this on review. I completed the required training, assessment, and work placement to attain my qualification. If the decision comes into effect on 20 December 2024 and my qualification is revoked, I risk losing my job and livelihood at a time of year where finding a new job is impossible. Additionally, the timing of the decision and the date of effect is unfair given the time of year and the impact the decision will have on me."[8]

1. On 23 December 2024, the Tribunal ordered that the Reviewable Decision be stayed on an interim basis until 17 January 2025 (interim stay order).
2. The interim stay order was extended on several occasions until 15 April 2025, when the stay application was heard by the Tribunal. On 2 May 2025, the Tribunal refused to grant Ms Kaur a stay order.[9]

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[10] (DPR Requirements) is a condition of Gills College being granted registration as an "NVR registered training organisation."[11]
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 Ms Kaur, 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.[12]
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.[13]
5. The cancellation of the Qualification was made by ASQA 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 Ms Kaur 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 [Ms Kaur] to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for the [Qualification] issued to [Ms Kaur] by Gills College"[14] (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?"[15] (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?"[16] (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 CHC 43015 Certificate IV in Ageing 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, 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 problematic for Ms Kaur in that the only record of Ms Kaur's enrolment at Gill's College was on WeWorkBook and her name did not appear at all 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.[17]
7. Mr Kapur also states in his evidence that Ms Stevenson informed him during that interview that qualifications completed via the recognition of prior learning (RPL) assessment pathway had been issued to Gills College students using WeWorkBook between 2022 and mid-2023.[18]
8. 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.[19]
9. 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.[20]

1. The hearing in this matter was held on 15 October 2025. Ms Kaur was self-represented and ASQA was represented by Mr D Freeburn of counsel.
2. Ms Kaur relied at the hearing on her Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 26 September 2025[21] (Applicant's SFIC). Ms Kaur gave evidence on her own behalf, and she was cross examined.
3. ASQA relied at the hearing on its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 18 July 2025[22] (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[23] (Stevenson Statement).

(b) Mr Martijn Broere (Mr Broere) (Assistant Director of Risk Analytics and Data Intelligence at ASQA) dated 26 June 2025[24] (Broere Statement). and

(c) Mr Siddharth Kapur (Mr Kapur) (former Chief Operating Officer and CEO of Gills College)[25] (Kapur Statement).

Ms Stevenson and Mr Broere gave evidence at the hearing. Ms Kaur briefly cross-examined Ms Stevenson and had no questions for Mr Broere.

1. The key points arising from the Applicant's SFIC can be summarised as follows:

(a) Ms Kaur received notification from ASQA that the Qualification had been cancelled, but did not respond to ASQA because she was contacted by Gills College who told her that they were filing proceedings concerning the College Cancellation Decision and that they would handle the case.

(b) Some of her friends who had obtained qualifications from Gills College had avoided, with the assistance of consultants, having their qualifications cancelled (although the Tribunal notes that no independent evidence of this asserted fact was before the Tribunal).

(c) The administrative and other failings of Gills College should not be visited on students like her, who were simply following the instructions (as to payment of fees, attendance and completion of tasks) issued by Gills College. and

(d) "... taking away this certificate not only erases my hard work and sacrifice, but also leaves me feeling humiliated, hopeless and unable to provide the future I worked so hard for, which is a loss that deeply affects both me and my children."

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

(a) Ms Kaur enrolled with Gills College for the course relating to the Qualification in November or December 2022.

(b) Ms Kaur obtained the Qualification on 2 August 2023 but was unable to explain why Gills College recorded her enrolment as having occurred on the same date as the date she was awarded the Qualification (2 August 2023).

(c) She commenced her placement with Royal Freemasons Benevolent Institution (RFBI) in June 2023 and was awarded the Qualification upon completion of the placement.

(d) The certificate issued by Gills College relating to the Qualification[26] (Qualification Certificate) shows that 18 competency units were completed by Ms Kaur. She was asked some questions about the competency unit entitled "Manage legal and ethical compliance" but had limited recall of the detail of that unit or of any other units, save that they all concerned "personal care."

(e) The course work for the Qualification took approximately 6 months of full-time study to complete.

(f) The training in the Qualification course consisted of some in-person classes at Hornsby and some on-line classes. Ms Kaur travelled from Bathurst (where she lived) to Sydney to attend physical classes on 1 or 2 days per week in the period between February 2023 and June 2023.

(g) Assessment of the competency units for the Qualification was part by assignment and part by exam. Assignments were completed by Ms Kaur on her daughter's laptop computer, printed out and physically delivered to Gills College when she attended classes in Hornsby. She did not save copies of any of her assignments to the laptop computer.

(h) Ms Kaur had no recollection of the name of the teacher or teachers who taught the in-person classes.

(i) Ms Kaur has no documentary evidence recording her enrolment at Gills College. Her evidence was that she paid Gills College an amount of between $2000 and $3000 in cash on account of her enrolment in the Qualification course. Ms Kaur has no receipt from Gills College or other document evidencing that cash payment.

(j) Ms Kaur's placement at RFBI was arranged by Ms Kaur after she requested a Bathurst placement from Gills College. She recalls providing information about the placement to both Gills College and RBFI but was unaware of the arrangements between them or the extent to which they commented about her placement.

(k) Gills College provided a workbook in relation to her placement which she completed and gave to RFBI. She did not retain copies of her workbook, the various assignment which she submitted or any relevant assessment documents.

(l) Ms Kaur could not recall any one specific piece of feedback she was given in relation to her performance whilst completing the Qualification. Gills College did not send her any emails, and she has no written proof (other than the Qualification Certificate) of having completed the 18 competency units. and

(m) Ms Kaur could not say whether she had completed the 18 competency units (which required the completion of not less than 600 hours of course work). She thought that about 8 of the competency units had required her to sit an exam but again could not be sure about the detail.

1. ASQA presented evidence from each of Ms Stevenson, Mr Broere and Mr Kapur. A summary of the key points arising from the evidence of these witnesses is set out below.
2. 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.[27]
3. 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.[28]
4. 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."[29]
5. 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.

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 Ms Kaur, 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 Ms Kaur with suitable supervision to give her the necessary exposure across the 18 units of competency making up the Qualification.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Mr Broere gave evidence at the hearing 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[30] and that there had been "bulk updating" or batching of information uploaded onto WeWorkBook, both matters which raised some concerns as to the quality of the information recorded on the system.
5. Mr Broere stated that he had concluded that WeWorkBook was not being used in a conventional manner because there was extensive evidence of records being entered or updated in the middle of the night and large parts of the records being updated at one time. So far as information about Ms Kaur was available on WeWorkBook, it showed that only classroom-based training had taken place.
6. 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.[31]

(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.[32]

(c) the only student management system which Mr Kapur had access to throughout the period of his employment with Gills College was aXcelerate.[33]

(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 aged 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.[34] 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.[35]

1. On the s.56(1)(a) 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 Ms Kaur to achieve the learning outcomes or competencies required for the Qualification.
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. Ms Kaur's details are only recorded on the WeWorkBook system, and the inference is that she did not undergo appropriate assessment by Gills College to support the awarding of the Qualification. That inference is supported by the manner of recording the details of her enrolment and completion of units on WeWorkBook, and the lack of evidence that there was any assessment of material submitted by Ms Kaur before the Qualification was issued on 2 Augst 2023.[36]
3. Secondly, Gills College's conduct should be treated as an admission that students like Ms Kaur 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.[37]
4. 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.[38]
5. Fourthly, Ms Kaur has been unable to produce any documentary evidence of her course work engagement having been assessed by Gills College. This lack of evidence makes it very difficult to determine whether Gills College delivered a comprehensive training course or conducted an RPL assessment.[39]
6. 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.[40]
7. On the s.56(1)(d) 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.
8. 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.
9. On the question of 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.
10. 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."[41]

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[42] (Site Skills) in ensuring that people who hold a qualification issued by an RTO "have been properly trained to a high standard."[43]
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."[44]

1. ASQA also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Sydney Training Academy Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority,[45] 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."[46]

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 Ms Kaur to maintain the Qualification where there is no evidence that a competent body has assessed whether Ms Kaur has the requisite skills and competencies required of a person holding a Certificate IV in Ageing Support.
2. ASQA makes the following points 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[47], they do not extend to the conduct of assessments of an individual student's competencies to hold a VET Qualification (including assessment by RPL).[48]

(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.[49] 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.[50]

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.

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 is clear 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 most 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 Ms Kaur, a student whose enrolment only appears in the WeWorkBook system, is crucial.
4. At the request of ASQA, the Tribunal issued a summons to produce documents, dated 10 June 2025 and addressed to Gills College, which sought the following documents pertaining to the Qualification:

"1. All documents relating to the delivery of the CHC43015 Certificate IV in Ageing Support to Sandeep Kaur...student ID number 479532 including:

(a) All communications between Gills College and Sandeep Kaur.

(c) Recognition of prior learning kits completed by Sandeep Kaur.

(d) All records of training delivered to Sandeep Kaur, including any online training or assignments.

(e) All records relating to vocational work placements completed by Sandeep Kaur (if any).

(f) All records of assessment against the units of competency comprising the CHC40315 Certificate IV in Ageing Support conducted in relation to Sandeep Kaur, including any assessment using recognition of prior learning.

2. All records of assessment relating to the training and assessment strategies for the CHC43015 Certificate IV in Ageing Support which was in effect for the period between 2 August 2022 to 2 August 2023."[51]

1. Gills College did not produce any documentation in response to the Summons.
2. Ms Kaur has provided very little documentary evidence of relevance to the Qualification. RFBI produced documents under summons which included a letter dated 7 February 2025 confirming that Ms Kaur completed 120 hours of her work placement in support of obtaining the Qualification.[52] Ms Kaur has been employed on a casual basis by RFBI since 7 August 2023.[53]
3. Whilst there is evidence of Ms Kaur having successfully completed her placement and having received some feedback in respect of that placement, there is a complete lack of documentary evidence concerning the training and assessment provided by Gills College in respect of the coursework component of the Qualification.
4. The evidence which Ms Kaur was able to provide at the hearing was vague and lacking in verifiable detail. Ms Kaur could not recall the name of or really distinguish between the 18 units of competency in the course, she could not recall the name of any of her teachers, she could not provide any specific examples of any assessment provided by Gills College or of any written feedback she received. Ms Kaur's evidence was that her training was partly online and partly in person. The information about her on WeWorkBook states her training to have been provided in the classroom. Ms Kaur's evidence was that she completed some coursework online on her daughter's laptop computer, but that no record of that work had been retained by her.
5. The Tribunal agrees with ASQA's submission that it is not possible to reconcile Ms Kaur's description of the training and assessment which she says she received from Gills College with Ms Stevenson's evidence as to what the minimum training and assessment requirements are to hold the Qualification.
6. 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 "HLTHPS006 Assist clients with medication" has an implementation guide[54] which lists Elements and Performance Criteria and the Assessment requirements for the competency.
7. The requirements are prescriptive and detailed. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that Ms Kaur 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.
8. The Tribunal accepts that the potential risk to the safety of 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.
9. The Tribunal in Rozario and Australian Skills Quality Authority[55] (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."[56]
10. I endorse what the Tribunal has said in Rozario. 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.[57](Neupane). 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."[58]. I endorse what is said in Neupane as well.

1. Returning to the issue of whether the Qualification issued to Ms Kaur 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: Ms S Kaur, Self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr I Duldig, Clayton Utz

[1] T7, Joint Hearing Bundle (JHB), pages 54 - 60.

[6] T1, JHB, pages 4 - 13. The Reviewable Decision is a reviewable decision under s. 199 of the NVR Act.

[9] Kaur and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 491.

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

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

[12] Respondent's SFIC, [14] - [17].

[13] Respondent's SFIC, [18] - [19].

[20] Respondent's SFIC, [48] - [49].

[35] Kapur Statement, [18], [22], [24] - [26], [36], [38].

[36] Respondent's SFIC, [54] - [64].

[37] Respondent's SFIC, [65] - [67].

[38] Respondent's SFIC, [68] - [70].

[41] Respondent's SFIC, [80] - [81].

[42] [2019] AATA 1870.

[43] [2019] AATA 1870, [87].

[44] [2019] AATA 1870, [20].

[45] [2018] AATA 3361.

[46] [2018] AATA 3361, [28(c)].