3. The applicant also made oral submissions which included answering various questions from the Tribunal concerning his current employment and the positions he holds.
4. Relevantly, when read with his documents, his evidence was to the effect that he has employment with two companies. One is Chaffey Aged Care and the other is Value Care. The work he undertakes is in and around Mildura.
5. In relation to Chaffey Aged Care, the applicant is employed as a Personal Care Assistant. His position is recorded in relevant payslips provided to the Tribunal.
6. During the hearing, reference was made to the position description for this job which is contained in another document the applicant provided to the Tribunal on 13 February 2025 entitled Personal Care Assistant ("Chaffey job description") being a document from Chaffey Aged Care setting out his job description.
7. It appears from answers to the Tribunal's questions that the applicant is employed as a "qualified personal care assistant" not an "unqualified personal care assistant". This is relevant because at page 4 of the Chaffey job description the selection criteria for this role requires the applicant to hold a Certificate IV in Ageing Support. That is, his current employment is dependent upon him holding a certificate of the type presently the subject of this review.
8. In oral submissions he confirmed that he might lose his job if the decision to cancel his qualifications is not stayed which would significantly impact him and his family.
9. In reply, the respondent filed written submissions and made oral submissions at the hearing of stay application.
10. On the question of prospects of success, the respondent said it was "neither necessary nor appropriate for the Tribunal to exhaustively assess the applicant's prospects of success in considering the stay application." However, the respondent submitted prospects were not strong.
11. The respondent submitted that because the College failed to provide adequate training and assessment of students (including the applicant) it followed that it was appropriate to cancel the applicant's qualifications. This, the respondent said, was "primarily to ensure public confidence in the qualifications gained through Australia's [Vocational and Educational Training (VET)] sector is maintained, specifically that those who hold VET qualifications have actually completed the required training and demonstrated that they have gained the requisite skills required for that qualification via the appropriate assessment".
12. In making this submission, the respondent said that the material provided by the applicant in response to the respondent's notice of intention to cancel the Qualifications and the material provided in support of the stay application did not contain any further evidence that the College in fact provided the training and assessment necessary for the applicant to achieve the learning outcomes for the certificate that he was awarded. Having said so, the respondent accepts that the applicant has not yet had an opportunity to provide further evidence, nor does he have the benefit of understanding the respondent's position which is to be provided by way of a statement of issues.
13. As to the consequences if a stay is refused, the respondent submits the applicant is currently employed in two roles - one as a disability support worker (personal care assistant) with Value Care - the second with Chaffey Aged Care where he is classified as an "Aged Care Employee, Level 5, PWC 4 (Cert4)".
14. Of the first position, the respondent submitted there was currently no minimum qualification requirements to work in the disability sector. The offer from Value Care dated 8 March 2024 did not require the applicant to hold any particular qualifications. As to his employment with Chaffey Aged Care, the respondent referred to an enterprise agreement which that provider has and submitted that "whilst an employee [like the applicant] is generally expected to have a relevant Certificate IV qualification, the employee may also undertake work at the Level III classification if they possess the equivalent knowledge or skills. In short, the respondent submitted at [3.17] of its written submissions that "it is not necessarily the case that the Applicant will lose his current employment if the stay is not granted".
15. In making this submission, the respondent accepted that it would be for the applicant's employer to determine whether the applicant's employment would continue if his qualifications were cancelled, and he was required to advise his employer of this fact.
16. On the question of public interest, the respondent referred to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the need to:

(a) protect vulnerable persons being those who might receive care; and > > (b) provide confidence to those in need as well as the community in general that the holders of qualifications possess the minimum level of skills, knowledge and competencies required for the particular certificate.

17. Reference was made to the decisions of Site Skills Group Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority[3] and Sydney Training Academy Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority[4] concerning the objects of the NVR Act and the public interest issues arising in connection with maintaining compliance by registered training organisations with their obligations under that legislation.
18. Next, respondent submitted that public confidence would be lost if the stay was granted in circumstances where the respondent had cancelled the College's registration.
19. Finally, the respondent said that the review would not be rendered nugatory or pointless if a stay was not granted. Here, the respondent said that the applicant "has not demonstrated that the ability to continue the proceedings would be impacted by the refusal of the stay, or that the proceedings would be rendered nugatory." In this regard it is for the applicant to demonstrate that the stay is required, the respondent referring to the decision of McNamara and Secretary, Department of Social Services.[5]

1. As noted above, an order may be made staying or otherwise affecting the operation or implementation of a decision the Tribunal considers that it is desirable to do so for the purpose of ensuring the effectiveness of the review.
2. Success for the applicant in the present case may result in the Decision being set aside and any adverse consequences to his present or future employment by reason of cancellation of his qualifications thereby avoided. As such, if a stay is not granted pending determination of the review application and his employment is lost, the review may, in part, be rendered ineffective.
3. On the other hand, as submitted by the respondent, there are a number of risks that might be posed to those for whom the applicant is caring and the public if a stay is granted and the applicant is able to rely on qualifications improperly obtained in circumstances where he was not adequately trained.
4. These matters, together with the other factors to which I have referred above require evaluation in determining whether a stay is desirable in the present case.
5. In doing so, regard must be had to ss 56 and 58 of the NVR Act, in particular the requirement for the National VET Regulator to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that one or all of the circumstances set out in subsections 56(1)(a)-(d) exist if the powers under those sections are to be exercised.
6. In my view, on the material presently available to the Tribunal, the application for review could not be described as unmeritorious or weak.
7. As will be evident from the Decision and the reasons referred to therein, a number of issues have been identified by the respondent in connection with the College conducting its training programs. However, some of these issues, which might be described as "generic", do not appear to apply to the applicant.
8. For example, in respect of reasons (e)-(g) of the Decision, the documents provided by the applicant suggest the applicant in fact attended the College and/or undertook training programs (such as work placement at the Bupa Villages and Aged Care centre in Mildura) associated with the qualification awarded: see e.g. email from College to applicant dated 16 February 2023 regarding requirements for undertaking work placement found in applicant's bundle provided to the Tribunal on 2 February 2025.
9. I should note at this point, that despite the respondent's obligations under s 23 of the Act, the documents provided by the respondent to the Tribunal do not contain the decision made in respect of the College (which is relevant to the decision made in connection with the applicant). Further, the Tribunal has not been provided with any student records kept by the College relating to the applicant concerning his attendance, training, coursework or curriculum relevant to the Qualifications, what enquiries were made by the respondent with the College in connection with those matters and/or evidence of what records exist.
10. Directions have been made to ensure compliance by the respondent with its obligations under s 23 of the Act. However, the limited material which the Tribunal has so far received from the parties provides some support for the view that the original decision made in connection with the applicant is not correct.
11. On the issue of consequences for the applicant if the stay is refused, the applicant gave evidence that the cancellation may affect his current employment, a view supported by the Position Description document for his position at Chaffey Aged Care where he holds the position of a personal care assistant. In this regard, the Key Selection Criteria in that document shows that a Qualified Personal Care Assistant is required to hold Certificate IV in Ageing Support being the qualification the subject of dispute in these proceedings: see document entitled Personal Care Assistant at page 4, provided to the Tribunal on 13 February 2025.
12. While the respondent referred to an Enterprise Agreement relating to Chaffey Aged Care, and submitted that formal qualifications were not required, I am not persuaded that the employment of the applicant will not be adversely affected if the decision to cancel his qualification is not stayed. Indeed, in submissions, the respondent appeared to accept this as a possibility.
13. As to the question of public interest, I do not accept that the risks identified by the respondent make the granting of a stay inappropriate.
14. The applicant has been working as a Personal Care Assistant in Mildura for some time. For example, he commenced with Chaffey Aged Care on 3 April 2023. There is no evidence to suggest he has performed his various roles in an unsatisfactory manner, that he does not possess the relevant knowledge to do so or that he poses any risk to those under his care or the public in general.
15. In these circumstances, I have formed the view that it is desirable to grant a stay pending a determination of the review application.
16. Having said so, I raised with the parties the possibility that any stay should be made on condition that the appropriateness of a stay might be reviewed if the applicant were to change his employment.
17. The applicant said that the stay should be unconditional.
18. I do not accept an unconditional stay is necessary or appropriate.
19. Rather, it seems to me that the stay should be on condition that the applicant notifies the respondent if he wishes to change employment. In this event, the respondent can apply to the Tribunal to discharge the stay should the respondent consider such an application is warranted.
20. My reasons for this view are as follows:

(a) The applicant has not suggested he will change jobs in the near future. Indeed, the effect of his evidence is there are limited employment opportunities in Mildura such that if he was to lose his job because a stay was not granted, he would be unable to find alternative employment. > > (b) On the other hand, a requirement that the applicant notify the respondent of any change of employment will serve as a means to protect the public. For example, if the reason for him changing employment was as a result of unsatisfactory performance of his present roles, this may alter the public interest considerations, particularly those to which the Tribunal is required to have regard under s 32(7) of the Act.

21. For these reasons, the order for stay will be on condition that the applicant notifies the respondent should he seek to obtain additional or alternative employment in the area of aged care or elsewhere.

(a) Order pursuant to s 32(2) Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, that the decision made 18 December 2024 to cancel the applicant's qualification entitled CHC43015 - Certificate IV in Ageing Support (Qualification) is stayed pending the determination of the application for review or further order of the Tribunal, whichever is the earlier. > > (b) The preceding order is conditional upon the applicant notifying the respondent if he ceases employment with Chaffey Aged Care or Value Care or seeks additional or alternative employment in the area of aged care or in an area of employment in which he seeks to rely on the Qualification. > > (c) In the event the respondent receives notification under the preceding order, it may apply to vary or revoke the stay order.

[3] [2009] AATA 1870 at [87].

[4] [2016] AATA 189 at [28(c)]

[5] [2016] AATA 189 at [12]