The Applicant sated that it had been delivering education services for more than 14 years without incident until the Respondent's Decisions. It argued the public interest is not served by interrupting the tuition of students or the engagement of staff in circumstances where there is no evidence of actual harm, rectification has occurred in the interim and Einstein is prepared to accept conditions preventing the enrolment of new students.
In its submissions, ASQA contended that the public interest is the overriding consideration, and that the Tribunal must consider the objects of the regulatory regime when forming a view about whether it is desirable to revoke the stay or to allow the stay with conditions.
The Respondent also submitted demonstrable harm had been identified during the compliance process. Ms Wright took the Tribunal to some examples including students who were overseas being issued qualifications, students being enrolled beyond the conditions of their visa and discrepancies in information provided by the Applicant to the Department of Job, Skills, Industry and Regions during an audit.
The Federal Court has held that in balancing interests that are competing, priority must be given to those whose interests are protected in the statutory scheme.[20] The protection of students, the integrity of the VET export sector and student visa system and the reputation of the vocational education and training sector generally, are at the heart of the NRV Act and the ESOS Acts. The interests of the students, both current and future, are therefore paramount. Students are entitled to expect that courses offered by any education provider are compliant and that they receive a quality education which fulfils their requirements.
As stated by the Tribunal in the decision of Metro College of Technology Pty Ltd and Australian Skills Quality Authority (unreported):[21]

But there is also the question of the public interest. The regulatory system was devised to protect consumers of these courses, and to protect the good name of Australian educational institutions overseas. Many students travel long distances from overseas ... The regulatory regime assumes there is a public interest in ensuring these programs are properly run according to recognized standards. Failures to adhere to standards - particularly where those failures suggest systemic problems, poor judgment or an unwillingness to comply with the law - must be taken very seriously.

The Regulator, protects students, the public interest in the integrity and reputation of the VET by taking appropriate action against non-compliant providers. It is in the public interest that registered educational providers comply with the statutory requirements and that the Regulator fulfill its statutory functions. In the absence of evidence about the financial consequences of revoking the stay, the Tribunal gives greater weight to the public interest by not exposing current students to non-compliant courses and teaching and the integrity and the reputation of VET sector more broadly. This factor weighs against the granting of a stay.

The Applicant argued that should the stay be revoked, the review would be rendered nugatory. For the reasons canvassed earlier, and in the absence of evidence the Applicant will become insolvent (as opposed from experiencing financial hardship) before the resolution of the proceeding, it is uncertain the review would be rendered nugatory. This consideration is also neutral.

Although the disruption to staff and students and the financial consequences to Applicant weigh in favour of granting a stay, the Tribunal is satisfied that those matters are slightly outweighed by the public interest in minimising the potential exposure of the current students to non-compliant teaching or a devalued qualification and the public interest in minimising the risk of damage to the reputation of the VET sector by permitting the Applicant to continue to operate pending the review. Given the remaining factors are neutral, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a stay, even with conditions, is necessary to secure the effectiveness of the review.

The application for a stay of each Decision of the Respondent is refused. The interim stay order is discharged from 5pm on Monday 24 November 2025.

[1] s 3 National Vocational Educational and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)

[4] s 6C Education Service for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth)

[6] s 32(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act)

[8] McNamara v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 189 at [12]

[9] Panganiban and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [ 2016] AATA 703 at [7]

[10] The cases frequently cited being Re Scott and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798; (2009) 51 AAR 114 and Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798.

[15] According to the ASIC record Yao Chen is also a shareholder

[16] Bayahow and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2025] ARTA 176 at [36]

[17] Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31 at [37].

[18] Australia International College Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] FCA 2097 at [37].

[19] Re Australian Institute of Technical Training Pty Ltd and Minster for Education and Training [2018] AATA 1281 at [57].

[20] Australian Securities and Investment Commission v the Administrative Appeal Tribunal [2009] 181 FCR at [51].

[21] Metro College of Technology Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority unreported decision in application number 2015/6137 as cited in Sher-e-Punjab Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] AATA 46 at [108].

Service for Overseas Students Act 2000(Cth)

Overseas Students Act 2000(Cth)

Vocational Educational and Training Regulator Act 2011(Cth)

Review Tribunal Act 2024

Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011

Shiv Sans Pty Ltd (trading as Einstein College) and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2472 (19 November 2025)

Australian International College Pty Ltd v Australian Skills Quality Authority [2018] FCA 2097

Australian Securities Investment Commission v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2009] FCR 181

Bayahow and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2025] ARTA 176

McNamara v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] AATA 189 at [12]

Panganiban and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] AATA 703

Poidevin and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] AATA 798

Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2008] HCA 31

Shiv Sans Pty Ltd (trading as Einstein College) and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2472 (19 November 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (19 paragraphs)

Legislation Cited (5)

Cases Cited (8)

Shiv Sans Pty Ltd (trading as Einstein College) and Australian Skills Quality Authority (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2472 (19 November 2025)