(a) the Applicant had not demonstrated proficiency engaging professionally with colleagues,

(b) the Standard 7 [requirements] had not been consistently met, and;

(c) the Applicant "has not demonstrated professional practice expected at the proficient level."[9]

1. By letter dated 18 October 2024, the Applicant provided Ms Read with a detailed response to her letter dated 12 September 2024 regarding her intention to suspend his registration.[10] This material is discussed later in these reasons.
2. On 21 October 2024 (the October 2024 letter), Ms Read, suspended the Applicant as a teacher for the period from 22 October 2024 until 31 March 2025. The reasons for this suspension were set out in the October 2024 letter. They are discussed later in these reasons.
3. On 18 November 2024, the Applicant filed an Application for Review of a Decision in relation to the 21 October 2024 decision of Ms Read to suspend his teacher registration.

1. As earlier recorded, on 18 November 2024, the self-represented Applicant filed an Application to review the decision of Ms Read. As filed, there were four grounds of the Application. As heard on 24 March 2025, there were ultimately only two grounds of review pressed. They were as follows:[11]

(a) Lack of Comprehensive Consideration: I provided an exhaustive response to TQI, addressing each concern in detail, yet I believe my response was not thoroughly reviewed. All relevant evidence was submitted to address the issues leading to the proposed suspension, which, I believe, were not given careful consideration.

(b) Insufficient Review Time by TQI: The timeline for TQI's decision does not reflect a reasonable period to evaluate my response fully. I submitted my response by the due date, Friday, 18 October 2024, but was notified of my suspension by 9:12am on Monday, 21 October. This brief interval suggests that my submission may not have been adequately reviewed.

1. The chronology set out above relevantly details the documentation before the Tribunal.
2. The first matter to address is the Applicant's material provided to Ms Read under cover of his letter dated 18 October 2024. Summarised, this letter addressed the following five matters: (i) his experience and personal circumstances; (ii) steps taken by the Applicant to address the issues in dispute; (iii) the Applicant's recognition of his mistakes; (iv) the Applicant's belief in complying with Standard 7; and (v) other matters, including the impact of the current proceeding upon his life and career.

(a) The Applicant noted that he misses (my word) "informal cues" in conflict resolution. He is working with his counsellor to improve his cognitive patterns. He said that he had sought clarification of certain matters from time to time but, in his view, this had been misinterpreted, possibly as a result of English being his second language. He said that he was committed to working hard and improving his skills. I should add that, at the hearing, the Applicant confirmed that he had been found guilty of a breach of a Domestic Violence Order in the Magistrates Court on 4 March 2025, and had received a bond for this breach.[12] He mentioned also that, in recent years and for a number of years, he had been, and was still, facing significant "personal difficulties" within his family, especially with his Wife.

(b) In the next section of what were, in effect, his submissions, the Applicant expressed his gratitude to Ms Wray for her support, and his efforts to improve his professional working relationships, which included him apologising to the Director of the Mathematics Department at his College regarding his recent interactions with colleagues in the staffroom. Such an apology, he said, reflected his commitment to foster a "harmonious and respectful working environment" which also reflected, in part, what is required under Standard 7. He then set out 14 matters relating to his responsibilities. I need not set these out, except to note his intention to dress professionally at work (including keeping his shoes on in the staffroom), to ensure that he does not contact staff via "personal phone or messages" and to follow instructions from his Line Manager.

(c) The Applicant briefly acknowledged that in some instances his behaviour could have been, and should have been, better.

(d) The Applicant said that over his 13 years of teaching he had consistently demonstrated compliance with Standard 7, notably regarding him engaging professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community. He expanded on these general statements, which I need not set out in detail here. He also said that he engaged in professional development, details of which he gave summarily.

(e) Finally, the Applicant said that he had effective engagement with the parent community, that he was determined to establish strong working relationships with all staff, but especially in the Maths department, and that he had provided a letter of support from his counsellor at Everyman. He said that the "rapid succession of meetings" had taken a "profound psychological impact" on him. In his view, the process was "rushed". He noted, understandably, that the suspension of his teacher registration would have a severe impact upon him personally and professionally, as well as on his family because he is the "primary provider" for them, including his young daughter. He also noted, simply as a statement that he was the subject or victim (my words) of racism, which has had an "immense, indirect effect" on his "regular duties." He provided correspondence with the College regarding a couple of instances of alleged racism he had encountered.

1. As a general observation only at this stage, the Applicant's material, as helpful as it is, actually is not "evidence". The material is a series of assertions and commitments. As important as such things are, they are not, without supporting documentation, or other documentation from outside or independent sources, "evidence" as the Applicant asserts. Because the statements and assertions are precisely this, it is understandable that they could be perused, for example by Ms Read, in a relatively expeditious way and timeframe. This would account for the relatively quick turnaround between the Applicant sending her his material on 18 October, and her formal response on 21 October 2024.
2. As well, it is reasonable for the Tribunal to take account of the period of time over which Ms Read had been in correspondence with the Applicant, Ms Wray from the College, and Ms Hale from TQI. Further still, over the same, extended period just referred to, Ms Read also had available to her a significant volume of documentation from the same persons noted. In these circumstances, she brought a solid history of familiarity, including with all documentation, to the decision she recorded in her letter of 21 October 2024. In my view, it was against that history of familiarity with issues and material that she was able to consider expeditiously the Applicant's documentation and submissions he provided to her on 18 October.
3. During the hearing on 24 March 2024, the Applicant stated that his primary grounds (my words) of opposition to his de-registration are based upon Minutes of Meetings with senior staff and management at his College on 2 an 9 September 2024, and in relation to an "Incident Report" dated 17 September 2017. The Applicant provided copies of these documents to the Tribunal on 14 March 2025. Unfortunately, he did not provide this material to the Respondent until during the hearing on 24 March 2025, although there was some familiarity with some of it. Briefly stated, the documents the Applicant relied upon may be noted as follows:

(a) The Minutes of the meeting with the Applicant record the presence of the Principal (Ms Wray) and Deputy Principal (Ms Crystal Mahon) of the College, together with the Applicant's support person, Maha Yasin.

(b) The first part of these Minutes note that the Applicant's WWVP card was suspended at the start of 2024 and his TQI accreditation [was] not granted as a result." There was also some discussion regarding the Applicant's behaviour with colleagues, and its likely impact for the purposes of compliance with the Standards.

(c) Then follows accounts of earlier meetings between the Applicant and the Deputy Principal, which also canvassed various concerns expressed by staff at the College regarding interactions with the Applicant, especially in relation to his "antagonistic communication styles" and him being "argumentative."

(d) Section 3 of these Minutes, under the heading "Current issues - Crystal" outlined a range of matters, for example, the requirement that staff work "effectively, efficiently and constructively", "Attendance and Absence", "Challenging Official Decisions", "Vexatious Complaints", and "Workplace harassment." The majority of the items provided brief descriptions regarding the Applicant's behaviour. I will only note that under the heading Workplace Harassment, part of the notes there recorded this:

"Since scheduling today's meeting last Tuesday VS has engaged in many unreasonable demands for immediate meeting and resolution of personal issues from senior leadership and their EA which could be considered to be bordering on harassment from some perspectives."

(e) Section 4 of these Minutes detail what is described as "Future focus", in which the Principal (Ms Wray - referred to in the Minutes as "Priscilla") outlined 8 areas in which the Applicant was required to show improvement in his behaviours. The Minutes ended with the following: "Overall, we need to see VS competently meet the standard "engaging professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community" at a proficient level.

(f) Following these Minutes is a brief series of undated and unsigned comments that are obviously from the Applicant. The fourth comment referred to the Incident Report of 17 September 2024. The Applicant stated: "... the content discussed regarding my professional conduct was already dealt with and I was not provided with an opportunity to speak about it." It is unclear when and how, in the Applicant's view, that his professional conduct "was already dealt with." Absent information regarding this, perhaps the Applicant intends to refer to the two earlier Term Reports from Ms Wray (noted above) in which she recorded the Applicant's conduct having been assessed at the requisite proficiency level. Regarding the "procedural fairness" issue the Applicant raised in his undated note, it is certainly the case that there is no mention in the Minutes of him speaking or commenting on any of the matters mentioned at the meeting.

1. The general observation to make here about these first Minutes (on 2 September 2024) is that the subjects of discussion appear to be designed to inform the Applicant about the concerns that were set out in them. Curiously and unfortunately, if the meeting was meant to be a "discussion" there is no indication that the Applicant commented on or responded at any time during the meeting to the matters raised. As already mentioned, presumably it was solely a meeting to provide information. What is also curious is that there is no record that the Applicant's support person, Maha Yasmin, ever intervened or made any comments during the meeting. In my view, it would be remarkable if a support person did not comment at a meeting of this kind, particularly if there was any concern about the discussion or issues being ventilated. Presumably, if there were any concerns or issues, the support person would have commented. Maybe there was comment but it was simply not recorded. This, too, would be remarkable. Further, it is also unclear if the brief commentary on the issues by the Applicant in the undated and unsigned document that follows the Minutes provided by the Applicant was ever provided to Gungahlin College or the Respondent, and if so, when. In short, there are a number of evidentiary gaps and questions arising from these Minutes and the other documents provided by the Applicant. In any event, as noted below, the Applicant did express and explain briefly his concerns about the 2 September Minutes. Thus, any procedural fairness matters, in my view, were clearly addressed relatively soon after the 2 September meeting.
2. Relevantly, in the Minutes dated 9 September 2024, there are clear comments regarding the Applicant's active involvement in, and comments at, this meeting. His comments include his concern that he had not been given the "chance to explain" at the earlier meeting on 2 September. He made a range of other comments and complaints. Among other things, Ms Wray noted that even since the meeting on 2 September, "things have regressed in terms of Vikram's emails." The Applicant said that he was shocked with the information presented to him about his conduct and expressed concern that they had not been raised with him beforehand.
3. Using my term, Part 2 of these Minutes cover very briefly what are described as "Next Steps", of which there are seven. Many of them overlap those described in the Minutes of 2 September 2024. They include "communicating professionally via face to face and digital communications", "following school processes and hierarchy", "treat colleagues with respect" and "following instructions from SL and line manager." A process of mediation was confirmed regarding the Applicant and his Line Manager.
4. The Incident Report of 17 September sets out, among other things, the psychological impact on the Applicant of the meeting of 2 September. He noted again what he described as the "lack of opportunity to express" himself at that meeting. He noted a modest range of incidents or accusations against him, such as him removing his shoes and socks (he denied removal of his socks and that he removed his shoes only briefly), what he described as "email misinterpretation", and allegations of him challenging official decisions, to name only a few. He noted "eight points for moving forward", which came from Ms Wray at the 2 September meeting and that he did not have any relevant opportunity to "understand or respond to these points." He noted also the psychological impact upon him of the early September meeting and the processes in which he was involved. It was not explained why he did not refer to the 9 September meeting in his Incident Report of 17 September.

The Respondent's Evidence (Ms Read's Letter of 21 October 2024)

1. In addition to the matters (including documentation) that is set out above in the chronology, the letter of Ms Read to the Applicant of 21 October 2024 (summarised) noted the following:

(a) Ms Read advised the Applicant, for the purposes of registration as a teacher, of the requirements under the TQI Act for him to hold a WWVP registration. She noted his WWVP registration being suspended from 22 December 2023, which was followed by that suspension being lifted on 22 February 2024, conditional upon conditions imposed regarding him teaching only at Gungahlin College, and satisfactory completion, by the Principal of his College at the end of each school term, of a TQI Term Teaching Report.

(b) On 9 September 2024, Ms Wray advised TQI that she was no longer willing to support the "employer-based" condition regarding the TQI end of term school report for the Applicant. Ms Wray advised TQI that she did not have the requisite resources to continue to implement the supervision/support of the Applicant.

(c) Ms Read confirmed that, under the TQI Act, upon the confirmation of Ms Wray of her inability and unwillingness to continue with her support, Ms Read was required to make a further assessment under the TQI Act, which led her to say that "on reasonable grounds" the suspension of the Applicant "was necessary for the purposes of the TQI Act."

(d) Ms Read then outlined what was contained in the Minutes of the meetings of 2 and 9 September 2024, and, very briefly, the Applicant's response to the matters raised in those Minutes. Ms Read advised the Applicant in her letter to him that the range of matters set out in the Minutes of 2 September signalled to her that the Applicant was "not following mandatory procedures for managing employee absences, challenging directions and decisions from supervisors, making vexatious complaints and repeated workplace harassment directed at an individual and teaching groups."

(e) Ms Read noted that the Applicant requested an extension of time to enable him to respond to her earlier letter giving him notice of her intention to suspend his registration. The extension sought was because his union representation was not available at that time. He was granted an extension until 18 October 2024.

(f) Following receipt of the Applicant's material and response to her letter of intention of 8 October, she notified him of her decision to suspend the Applicant's registration on 21 October 2024. This suspension expired on 31 March 2025, or until such time that she can be provided with evidence from either Access Canberra (regarding his WWVP registration), or your employer, to enable her to make a determination that the Applicant meets the eligibility requirements under s.32(1)(d) of the TQI Act.

(g) The Applicant was provided with details regarding his appeal rights in relation to Ms Read's decision.

1. At the hearing, the Applicant's submissions were confined to, and certainly his focus upon, (a) the documentation he provided to the Tribunal (noted above), and (b) his reference, in particular, to the Minutes of 2 and 9 September 2024, together with the Incident Report of 17 September.
2. The Respondent's principal submissions, in writing and also briefly orally at the hearing, were as set out in paragraphs 19-23 of the submissions filed on 14 March. Those paragraphs are as follows:

19. A person is eligible for full registration as a teacher if the TQI is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person holds WWVP registration - s 32(1)(d) TQI Act.

20. The Applicant's WWVP registration is currently suspended.

21. Section 59(5) of the Working With Vulnerable People (Background Checking) Act 2011 provides that "To remove any doubt, a person whose registration is suspended does not have a registration allowing the person to engage in a regulated activity."

22. Whilst the decision to suspend the Applicant's registration as a teacher was made on 21 October 2024, before the Applicant's WWVP registration was suspended, it is not necessary for the purpose of this proceeding to examine the merits of that decision because the Applicant is currently ineligible for registration as a teacher. Nonetheless, the Respondent's position is that even if the Applicant held WWVP registration, the correct and preferable decision would be to confirm the decision under review.

23. The suspension of the Applicant's registration as a teacher ends on 31 March 2025, being the date on which the Applicant's teaching registration expires. If the Applicant attains WWVP registration, it is open to the Applicant to apply for renewal of his registration as a teacher (on or before 31 March 2025), or to thereafter make a fresh application for registration as a teacher under section 30 of the TQI Act.

1. Across many areas of law there is provision for merits review. Such hearings are called, and required to be, de novo, literally meaning "from the new", or more simply, a new hearing. This is also to say that such a hearing is not an appeal, nor is it judicial review. A merits review is where the Tribunal stands in the place of the original decision-maker and makes its own decision.
2. As one example among many, in bankruptcy, a review of the making of a sequestration Order is a hearing de novo. In Totev v Sfar the Full Federal Court has described such a hearing as follows (emphasis added):[13]

13 In the case of a hearing de novo, however, the judge reviewing the order begins afresh and exercises for himself or herself any discretion exercised by the registrar. The parties commence the proceeding again, subject to any rules concerning the use of evidence adduced before the registrar. The hearing de novo involves the exercise of the original jurisdiction and the petitioner, in the case of a bankruptcy petition, must start again, call witnesses and make out the petitioner's case (Harris v Caladine at 124).

14 Because the hearing of an application for review of a sequestration order is a hearing de novo, it would not be sufficient for the reviewing judge to be satisfied that the registrar made no error and simply to dismiss the application for review. The judge who hears the review application must hear the petition afresh ...

1. In addition to this description regarding the conduct of a hearing de novo, s.68 of the ACAT Act prescribes the procedural options the Tribunal must exercise, namely (a) to confirm the decision, (b) vary the decision, or (c) set aside the decision and either make a substitute decision or remit it to the original decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with any direction from the Tribunal.
2. In the light of these principles, I note the following. In doing so, although the following cases are primarily from judicial review matters, they are discussed as points of reference, among other things, to show that the Tribunal's consideration of the current Application is assisted, quite objectively, by the principles discussed in these decisions.
3. Given that the Applicant has effectively contended that the decision by TQI was unreasonable, among other things, it is important to take a few minutes to consider what Courts have discussed regarding claims of unreasonableness.
4. For example, there is much discussion, at the highest level, regarding "unreasonableness" and matters relating thereto. For current purposes, I need only note the following. Again, I acknowledge that the principles below have invariably arisen in cases of judicial review, as opposed to merits review. However, some basic principles, such as in relation to "unreasonableness" have wider application and, accepting that the Application is self-represented, issues of "unreasonableness" and related matters implicitly seem to undergird many of his comments - in writing and orally to the Tribunal.
5. Every case is completely fact-specific, and therefore, fact-dependent.[14] This is also to say that the facts of one matter will rarely, if ever, assist in the resolution of another, even similar, matter but they can still be points of reference.
6. Courts and tribunals should be careful not to bring an unduly critical eye to decision-making in administrative matters. For example, in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang, the High Court said:[15]

30. ...a court should not be "concerned with looseness in the language ... nor with unhappy phrasing" of the reasons of an administrative decision-maker. The Court continued: "The reasons for the decision under review are not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error".

31. These propositions are well settled. They recognise the reality that the reasons of an administrative decision-maker are meant to inform and not to be scrutinised upon over-zealous judicial review by seeking to discern whether some inadequacy may be gleaned from the way in which the reasons are expressed.

1. I simply confirm, again, that the Tribunal's task is to consider anew (i.e. de novo) the materials before it, which were also before TQI, and decide whether the decision under review should be confirmed, varied, or set aside.
2. In Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu, the High Court (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J) said, at [40], in very well-known statements that are often cited:[16]

Someone who disagrees strongly with someone else's process of reasoning on an issue of fact may express such disagreement by describing the reasoning as "illogical" or "unreasonable", or even "so unreasonable that no reasonable person could adopt it". If these are merely emphatic ways of saying that the reasoning is wrong, then they may have no particular legal consequence.

1. These comments by the High Court, in my view, readily and quite strongly, characterise the disposition of the Applicant here, as someone who "strongly disagrees" with the decision under discussion here. However, as the High Court said, simply because someone disagrees strongly with a decision does not necessarily or inevitably, without more, lead to any particular legal consequence.
2. Likewise, the comments of Crennan and Bell JJ regarding what constitutes an "unreasonable" decision in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS are equally well-known.[17] Because those comments have been noted in later Full Federal Court decisions, I need not set out here the earlier High Court remarks.
3. More summarily still, recent Federal Court decisions have recorded that "unreasonableness" is now more usually limited to irrational processes underlying conclusions of fact or opinions, and unreasonable choices regarding the exercise of discretionary power.[18] Further, it can safely be said that unreasonableness review, such as in the present matter, focuses particularly on the process in the fact-finding exercise.[19] Without specifying it, the Applicant here seems to highlight that the process by TQI in reaching a decision in a few days, was unreasonable and showed, in his view, that there was not proper, or sufficient, consideration of the matters had had raised in his material. One way of viewing his complaint(s) is that the process was rushed, which led to insufficient or even improper consideration of those complaints. This said, and as already noted, as important as "process" is, the Tribunal here is concerned with merits review.
4. Noting again that this is a merits review Application, as opposed to judicial review (the focus of the latter is primarily upon the processes involved), the cases referred to (and many others) note that:

(a) factual errors (even errors as to material facts) are not, in themselves, the bases for review, because fact-finding is the decision-maker's job;

(b) an issue of the "materiality" of any claimed error must be examined. This means that it falls upon the person who alleges error to show that, as a fact or relevant inference, the error is such that if it had not been made, the ultimate decision would have gone another way. This is all part of the Tribunal's task to make its own assessment of the materials provided by the parties.

1. Given that there also seems to be an implicit unfairness that rests behind the Applicant's complaints, it is important to record one other authority. Critically, in a famous, and typically brief, comment, in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: Ex parte Lam, Gleeson CJ said:[20]

Fairness is not an abstract concept. It is essentially practical. Whether one talks in terms of procedural fairness or natural justice, the concern of the law is to avoid practical injustice.

1. Given the Applicant's remaining grounds of review, it is important to note that the Full Federal Court of Australia has confirmed firstly that an original requirement of decision-makers to undertake a "proper, genuine and realistic" assessment of the materials put by the Applicant, the proper approach today is that the decision-maker is required to apply an "active intellectual process" to the matters raised by the Applicant. This latter process is designed to ensure or to guard against what are described as "decisional checklists or formulaic expressions."[21]
2. The Tribunal here also seeks to bring a "proper, genuine and realistic assessment" to this review, indeed, to bring an active intellectual engagement to the consideration of the Applicant's review. It is certainly not a "checklist" of any sort.

1. The remarks that follow are in two parts: first, there is a brief discussion of the confluence of the factual and legal reality upon which the Respondent relies, namely that, whatever the Tribunal's determination of the Application to review the decision of Ms Read, the expiration of the Applicant's suspension of his teacher registration on 31 March, together with him not holding a valid WWVP registration, which is a pre-requisite for teacher registration, means that the Application for review must be dismissed. For convenience, I will call this the WWVP issue. Secondly, the Tribunal summarily considers the specific grounds of review raised by the Applicant. I will call this aspect the review issue.
2. Regarding the WWVP issue, the matters set out in paragraph 3 on page 1, and paragraph 2 on page 2 of Ms Read's letter of 21 October 2024 regarding the requirements for teacher registration under the TQI Act, in particular, holding a valid WWVP registration, pose an insurmountable problem for the Applicant. That problem is highlighted, in overview, in the Respondent's submissions, dated 14 March 2025, at paragraphs 19-23. These paragraphs are set out earlier in these reasons. In short, s.38(1)(c) of the TQI Act requires a person seeking registration as a teacher to hold a valid WWVP registration. The respondent's submissions make clear, by reference to s.59(5) of the WWVP (Background Checking) Act 2011 (I have used the abbreviated form of this Act) that "... a person whose registration is suspended does not have a registration allowing the person to engage in a regulated activity." Teaching is a regulated activity.
3. The Applicant does not hold a valid WWVP registration. It follows that he cannot, therefore, obtain registration under the TQI Act as a teacher. Accordingly, whatever the grounds otherwise set out in Ms Read's letter of 21 October 2024, the Applicant cannot become registered as a teacher under the TQI Act unless and until he holds a valid WWVP registration.
4. For the reasons here, including the Respondent's submissions (which I accept and otherwise adopt on this issue) referred to regarding the statutory inability of the Applicant to be registered as a teacher because he does not hold a valid WWVP registration, his Application for review (a) is unsustainable, from which follows that (b) the decision of TQI must be confirmed as both reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances, and (c) the Application must be dismissed.
5. It may otherwise be stated that the Applicant has statutory impediments to his registration as a teacher which, in every legal sense, overwhelm or otherwise take precedence over any other reason, actual or implied, for his inability to be registered as a teacher under the TQI Act.
6. Finally, at the hearing on 24 March 2025, the Applicant said that he accepted the submissions of the Respondent regarding s.38(1) of the TQI Act, as spelt out in its submissions. Notwithstanding that this confirmation meant that his Application was doomed to fail because of the operation of the TQI legislation regarding the requirements of his registration, and him not relevantly holding a valid WWVP registration, he still pressed the remaining grounds of his review Application.
7. Regarding these two remaining grounds of review as set out in his Application, I note the following.
8. It will be recalled that the Applicant's two remaining grounds of review (set out above) relate to (a) "lack of comprehensive consideration" and (b) "insufficient review time by TQI." In more standard legal terms, the first of these grounds is largely equivalent to "failure to consider/failure to consider properly" the materials put before TQI, and the second is, in fact, a subset of the first ground (or in more colloquial parlance, these grounds are different sides of the same coin).
9. The fundamental problem for both of these grounds is that the bases of rejection of his TQI registration as set out in the letter of Ms Read on 21 October 2024, in more summary form, were spelt out in correspondence from TQI throughout 2024, and in the course of the meetings he had with Ms Wray, for example, on 2 September 2024. The first item from the Minutes of this meeting state: "VS's WWVP card suspended at the start of 2024 and TQI accreditation not granted as a result."
10. Further, the chronology above makes plain that the Applicant and TQI (Ms Read and Ms Hale) were in regular communication regarding the requirements for his registration as a teacher under the TQI Act, and similarly, he was in regular receipt of correspondence regarding his WWVP registration. From the correspondence noted, in the Tribunal's view, it is plain that the Applicant was aware of the requirements of his registration as a teacher and the impact upon it by not having a valid WWVP registration. The Applicant was also aware, certainly from Ms Wray and her later Term Reports (noted above), and from meetings with her on 2 and 9 September, of concerns regarding his conduct at Gungahlin College and the complaints from his colleagues at the College. While he disputed them, both in degree and in certain other factual circumstances, it cannot be said that either he, or Ms Read, at any stage through 2024, were unaware of the issues the Applicant raised in his correspondence with Ms Read on 19 October 2024. Ms Read was readily aware of the documents, and the issues raised in them, throughout 2024. Among other things, she had the correspondence from Ms Wray throughout September 2024, including her last Report of 24 September 2024, which highlighted a range of concerns regarding the Applicant's behaviour with colleagues, and therefore, his failure to meet the relevant and prescribed teaching standards.
11. In the light of Ms Read's familiarity with the issues involving the Applicant throughout 2024, which essentially did not change throughout the year, and her reasonably regular communication with him, it cannot be said that Ms Read failed, or failed properly, to consider the materials put before her by the Applicant on 19 October, prior to her letter of decision of 21 October 2024. The material provided by the Applicant to Ms Read on 19 October 2024 (the covering note from the Applicant is dated 18 October) canvassed issues that had been previously before TQI throughout 2024. Indeed, in her letter to the Applicant dated 12 September 2024, Ms Read had highlighted, again, the issues she was required to address under the TQI Act, having regard to, among other things, the Applicant's difficulties regarding his WWVP registration.
12. Precisely because of her familiarity with the material provided by the Applicant and the issues it canvassed, in my view, it cannot reasonably be said that there was relevant failure to consider (a) said material, and (b) the issues it raised, as required in the High Court and Federal Court authorities referred to above. Put another way, in my view, I would have made the exact same decision, and for the same reasons as Ms Read that she recorded in her October 2024 letter to the Applicant. Her decision should be confirmed under s.68(3) of the ACAT Act.
13. Accordingly, even if there was not the statutory barrier to the Applicant's registration (both in relation to TQI and in relation to WWVP), his remaining grounds of review are not made out. More relevantly, as indicated above, in my view, while the onus is not upon the Applicant to establish error but for the Tribunal to undertake its own assessment and to make its own decision, the decision of Ms Read was the proper one in all of the circumstances. It should be, and will be, confirmed.
14. Accordingly, pursuant to s.68(3) of the ACAT Act, the Tribunal confirms the decision of TQI regarding the Applicant made on 21 October 2024. Therefore, the Application for Review, filed on 18 November 2024 must be dismissed.

[1] The letter from the Delegate of the Commissioner for Fair Trading, Access Canberra, Working with Vulnerable People Compliance, dated 22 December 2023, is at p.14 of the T Documents before the Tribunal.

[2] I need not detail a further suspension of the Applicant, which came via a letter from Ms Read, dated 5 March 2024 because of his failure to provide her with the original letter from Access Canberra regarding his WWVP registration. See p.31 of the T Documents.

[6] A summary of issues discussed at this meeting are set out in Minutes, dated 2 September 2024. See T 55-57

[11] For completeness, I note that the same Applicant has separate but related proceedings against the Commissioner for Fair Trading that relates to the suspension of the Applicant's Working with Vulnerable People's Card ("WWVP Card"), matter AT 145 of 2024. Because of an overlap between the Grounds of Review in each matter, the WWVP matter has been adjourned until after the Tribunal's decision in the current matter on a date to be advised.

[12] Because the information by the Applicant was somewhat "on the run" and very late-breaking, it might have also been the case that he had consented to Orders on a "without admissions" basis. There was no documentary evidence to assist the Tribunal regarding the actual detail about what had happened in the Magistrates Court.

[13] Totev v Sfar [2008] FCAFC 35; (2008) 167 FCR 193; (2008) 247 ALR 180 at [13] - [14]

[14] See comments by Nettle and Gordon JJ in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541 at [84] ("SZVFW").

[15] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 (internal citations omitted).

[16] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611

[17] See Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [128] and [129]

[18] Generally, see the detailed discussion in SZVFW, cited earlier in these reasons, on these matters.

[19] There are multiple Full Federal Court, and other, authorities on these now basic points: see ABT17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 34; (2020) 269 CLR 439; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT [2013] FCA 317; (2013) 212 FCR 99; Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11; (2016) 237 FCR 1

[20] Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 at [37]

[21] See Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 107; (2017) 252 FCR 352 at 364, Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 225; (2018) 267 FCR 628 at 630 [3], and DVO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 12; (2021) 95 ALJR 375 at 380 [12] and [77]