RTO Legal

Under the Standards for VET Regulators 2015 (“the Standards”) ASQA must have a policy to manage and respond to complaints about its regulatory practices. This is called the Policy for managing complaints about ASQA (“the Policy”).

Who can make a complaint?

Anyone can make a complaint about ASQA and it can be done anonymously. If you make a complaint anonymously ASQA may not proceed to investigate unless there is sufficient information provided. ASQA must properly consider your complaint under the Policy.

What can you complain about?

• The handling of your application for registration by ASQA;

• Information or the lack of information provided to you by ASQA; and

• The actions of ASQA employees – this includes its auditors and other staff members.

When doesn’t the Policy apply?

The Policy does not apply to complaints about regulatory decisions such as deregistration of your RTO. It also does not apply to complaints relating to the activities of RTOs themselves or complaints about fees and charges of ASQA.

What is the process?

To make a complaint about ASQA, you need to fill out the ‘Make a complaint about ASQA’ form found here: asqa.gov.au/complaints/complaints-about-asqa.

You can send the complaint to feedback@asqa.gov.au (formal method), directly to ASQA’s postal address or in another appropriate way. Once submitted, your complaint will be acknowledged by receipt within 5 days unless the complaint is submitted through a non-formal method.

If ASQA Legal considers that it will take more than 90 days to finalise your complaint, they will advise you with their reasons. Once ASQA completes the investigation, you will be notified what the outcome has been.

Procedural Fairness

Throughout the investigation of your complaint ASQA needs to follow the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice.

ASQA must provide both you and the person/s subject to your complaint the right to be heard. This means that if you complain about an individual directly that unless extenuating circumstances apply, they will be provided with a copy of your complaint. ASQA must also ensure there is no bias in relation to the investigation or finalisation of your complaint.

Document disclosure

Throughout the investigation of your complaint, ASQA must be transparent in how and which documents they provide to you. If you are concerned that ASQA is not giving you all the information you have asked for, then you may consider submitting a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. For more information on how to lodge a FOI application please see:oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-resources/foi-fact-sheets/foi-fact-sheet-6-how-to-apply.

What remedies can you expect from a complaint to ASQA?

Once you make a complaint, ASQA’s Governance, Policy and Quality team will investigate the complaint and they will prepare a report. This report includes recommendations and a written response to you.

If the complaint requires further action, then this will be included in the recommendations. The written response that you receive from ASQA will detail the outcome of the investigation and any actions that will affect you.

Still dissatisfied?

If you are still dissatisfied after your complaint has been finalised by ASQA, you may seek a review of the complaint by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This can be found here: ombudsman.gov.au. You must file a complaint with ASQA first, otherwise, the Ombudsman is unable to review the complaint.

Who is the Ombudsman?

The Ombudsman is an impartial office that investigates decisions made by government officials and agencies. ASQA is a government agency and therefore you can complain to the Ombudsman about ASQA.

Once a complaint is submitted to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman must inform the principal officer of the department or authority of the complaint. The investigation by the Ombudsman is conducted in private. The Ombudsman also has discretion as to the way the investigation is undertaken; natural justice does not need to be provided to ASQA.

What remedies can you expect from the Ombudsman?

The Ombudsman’s guiding principle is to “put a person in the position he or she would have been if no administrative problem had occurred”. Normally this occurs through a recommendation by the Ombudsman that the agency apologises. This must be a formal apology admitting fault and must include how in future this will not occur again.

Other available remedies to you include compensation under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) and/or an explanation of ASQA’s decision. Each year, the Commonwealth Ombudsman also publishes an annual report detailing what complaints the Office has dealt with.1 If ASQA’s conduct was such to warrant being published by the Ombudsman, then this is also a deterrent to ASQA being investigated by the Ombudsman.

For advice on your rights and assistance, speak with your rto lawyer

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2MsKcny

Last month, many praised the good words of Andrew Laming MP, who in his speech to Parliament, amplified hard-hitting issues in the training sector. During his nationwide consultation with Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), Mr Laming said that he repeatedly heard one sentiment: the shortcomings of the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).

Mr Laming, current Chair of the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, described ASQA’s behaviour as “aggressive and adversarial” and said the regulator had developed a “focus on over compliance” and was imposing serious sanctions on RTOs for trivial non-compliances.

He went on to say,

One would hope that [ASQA] would demonstrate a form of model litigant conduct, meaning that it would not deliberately engage in legal tactics designed to damage the [applicant]… But, increasingly, that is not how RTOs feel.

Yes, that’s right. ASQA Legal has a duty to not to engage in legal tactics. In fact, ASQA has a positive duty to be fair and maintain proper standards in litigation.

This principle is known as the model litigant obligation and applies to all government agencies. Despite having this obligation, many RTOs who are involved in compliance related disputes with ASQA feel that they are experiencing anything but “model” behaviour from ASQA, inside and outside the Tribunal.

The Model Litigant Obligation

In simple terms, the model litigant obligation requires the government (including ASQA) to act honestly and fairly during court and Tribunal cases. Specifically, the Legal Services Directions 2017 explains government bodies are obliged to be a model litigant and should always:

l deal with claims promptly without causing delay

l act consistently in all matters

l attempt to avoid, prevent and reduce the scope of litigation

l keep costs as low as possible

l try not take advantage of the other party, especially if they lack resources, and

l avoid relying on technical defences.

The obligation does not mean that ASQA lawyers must be kittens in the court room. It does not prevent ASQA from acting firmly to advance its interests.

The model litigant obligation is a well established legal principle that applies to all government agencies and government lawyers. Even as far back as the 1940s the courts recognised that government should “serve the public interest for which it was created”1 because it is “the source and fountain of justice”.2

In addition, ASQA has an obligation to assist the Tribunal under section 33 (1AA) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). This section requires that ASQA must focus on assisting the Tribunal to make the correct decision, rather than defending its own original decision. This duty to assist the Tribunal means ASQA should be:

l making information easily available to the Tribunal

l avoiding delays, and

l actively presenting new material (such as evidence of remedial action).

Further, ASQA’s legal practitioners have additional general duties to the Tribunal. These include the duty not to mislead the Tribunal regarding facts or law, the duty to produce all relevant documents under section 37 AAT Act and the duty to disclose the whole of the law, even if they believe it to be unhelpful or inapplicable.

So, is ASQA the “model litigant” or the “malicious litigant”?

Duties, principles, obligations and laws exist yet, many say, ASQA does not relent.

Andrew Laming MP is of the opinion that ASQA is failing in its model litigant obligations.

Mr Laming states ASQA is “using the AAT as a vehicle for extinguishing RTOs” for the “purposes of legal expense, reputational damage and delay”. These tactics fly in the face of ASQA’s duty to act honestly and fairly – to behave as a model litigant.

Where the model litigant principle requires ASQA to act consistently in all cases and reduce the scope of litigation, Mr Laming reports of inconsistent auditors and prosecution for petty breaches.

Mr Laming also comments on the matter of stays, a crucial aspect of most RTOs’ successful appeal against an ASQA decision:

I’m disturbed that virtually every application for a stay may now be refused for no good reason that I can see. A stay is a very important legal option that should be available and should be offered by a model litigant—in this case, ASQA.

Watch Andrew Laming MP’s full speech here.

The Tribunal has noticed ASQA’s model litigant failings too.

In a case last year,3 the Tribunal found that ASQA was being “unnecessarily obstructive” in the proceeding. The member said:

ASQA ’s role in these proceedings is that of a model litigant… I accept that ASQA is entitled to act firmly and properly to protect its interests… however when litigation descends into being unnecessarily obstructive and combative, it is of no assistance to the Tribunal.

If you believe that ASQA is not behaving like a model litigant, what can you do?

RTOs have limited recourse if ASQA fails in its model litigant duties in the Tribunal. An RTO can submit a complaint to ASQA. ASQA can take up to 90 days to investigate and respond. Additionally, after exhausting avenues for an internal complaint, an RTO may submit a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for further investigation which can take another 3 to 6 months. However, if a matter is before the Tribunal, an RTO generally needs the issue to be resolved immediately.

So, the best hope RTOs have is to raise the issue with the Tribunal. If you believe that ASQA may not be behaving like a model litigant in the course of any proceedings before the Tribunal, speak up then and there. Be sure to remind the Tribunal of ASQA’s model litigant obligations.

For advice on your rights and assistance, speak with your lawyer.

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2Mj8i43

Third party arrangements are beneficial, especially for small RTOs that wish to engage other organisations to carry out services or training for them. Third party or agency arrangements are clearly anticipated and permitted by the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (NVR Act) and the Standards for RTOs.

Recently, ASQA issued this General Direction—third-party arrangements for training and or assessment of VET courses, aspects of which many people believe to be wrong.

But how wrong is it?

The ASQA General Direction states that if a principal RTO wishes to engage a third-party RTO to act as an agent and assist in delivering training and assessment of a qualification, the third-party RTO must have that qualification on its scope of registration. This rule only applies where both parties (principal and agent) are RTOs.

Sounds wrong, right?

ASQA’s rationale

ASQA is well aware of the laws of agency. In fact, the General Direction states:

Principal RTO is responsible for all activity by third parties. The existence of a third party agreement does not absolve the principal RTO of responsibility for compliance with relevant regulatory obligations. In all circumstances, the principal RTO is fully accountable for the actions of the third party as they relate to the delivery of relevant services, regardless of any part of a third party agreement that may suggest otherwise.

But for some reason this position excludes third-parties that also happen to be RTOs.

ASQA explains the rationale for its position arises from sections 93 and 94 of the NVR Act. These sections state that it is an offence for an RTO to provide, or offer to provide, all or part of that VET course without registration. Based on these provisions, ASQA says that a principal RTO cannot engage an agent RTO to deliver a course on the principal’s behalf, unless the agent has the same course on its scope of registration.

According to ASQA, this means that an RTO cannot engage another RTO to deliver a VET course, unless the third-party RTO has that VET course on scope.

The common sense interpretation of sections 93 and 94

Undoubtedly sections 93 and 94 of the NVR Act prohibit an RTO from delivering a course it does not have within the scope of its registration. The clear intention of these provisions is to prevent RTOs delivering training without first obtaining the proper approval. The aim being to protect student’s interests to ensure the RTO has adequate resources and processes in place to deliver the training to a satisfactory standard.

The right to enter into a third-party arrangement is a general right at law that all RTOs have. This right is contemplated by the NVR Act and the RTO Standards. The meaning of third party is defined in the RTO Standards as: any party that provides services on behalf of the RTO. The important words here are “any party”, making it clear that other RTOs are not excluded from this definition.

Section 93 and 94 were clearly not intended to be read in the restrictive sense that ASQA has construed (or skewed!). Every provision within a legislative framework must be construed consistently with the language and purpose of the statute, viewed as a whole and in its context.

The law of agency vs ASQA’s position

In addition to the laws of statutory interpretation, we can also turn to the law of agency to demonstrate the error in ASQA’s reasoning.

The law of agency says that a principal (including an RTO) can engage an agent (including an RTO) to act on behalf of the principal in almost any commercial capacity. From a compliance and liability perspective, the principal RTO must ensure that the delivery of the training and assessment is consistent with applicable law, regulation and standards. However, there is nothing that generally prevents a principal RTO engaging another RTO to deliver training and assessment on its behalf.

ASQA’s reliance on sections 93 and 94 of the NVR Act is misplaced. On a proper application of the law, those provisions do not restrict the general right of an RTO to appoint an agent (including another RTO) to deliver training and assessment on its behalf.

Based on this, an RTO lawyer can appoint any person to act as its agent in the delivery of training and assessment. Whilst the training and assessment is delivered by the agent (be it another RTO or a non-RTO), that delivery is on behalf of the principal RTO (not on behalf of the agent). Because the delivery is on behalf of the principal RTO, which has the relevant item on scope, there is not need for the agent RTO to have the same item on scope.

Way forward

If you believe that you are or may be affected by ASQA’s General Direction on this issue, it you should immediately seek legal advice on your specific situation – do not rely on this article.

Under the NVR Act, the General Direction is generally binding on RTOs unless it is set aside by a court or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in a case before it.

However, the vast majority of RTOs, understandably, wish to avoid going to court or the AAT and would rather concentrate on their core function of delivering training and assessment.

Fortunately, there are very simple structural changes that RTOs can make to their third-party arrangements to fall into compliance with ASQA’s General Direction.

But for those of you who wish to challenge the validity of the General Direction, you may wish to consider the following with advice from your lawyer.

(1) Submitting a complaint through ASQA’s internal channels. https://www.asqa.gov.au/complaints/complaints-about-asqa

(2) Going to the AAT. The Standards for RTOs require RTOs notify ASQA within 30 days of entering intoan agency agreement with a third party. If you apply to have your agency

agreement approved by ASQA Lawyer and it gets denied, you can appeal this decision through the AAT. You can then challenge the validity of the General Direction at the AAT.

(3) Another option is to challenge ASQA’s interpretation of section 93 and 94 of the NVR Act in the Federal Court by invoking your rights under the ADJR Act and section 39B of the Judiciary Act.

For advice on your rights and assistance, speak with your lawyer.

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/33mdTNM

Last month, many praised the good words of Andrew Laming MP, who in his speech to Parliament, amplified hard-hitting issues in the training sector. During his nationwide consultation with Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), Mr Laming said that he repeatedly heard one sentiment: the shortcomings of the regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).

Mr Laming, current Chair of the House of Representatives’ Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, described ASQA’s behaviour as “aggressive and adversarial” and said the regulator had developed a “focus on overcompliance” and was imposing serious sanctions on RTOs for trivial non-compliances.

He went on to say,

One would hope that [ASQA] would demonstrate a form of model litigant conduct, meaning that it would not deliberately engage in legal tactics designed to damage the [applicant]... But, increasingly, that is not how RTOs feel.

Yes, that’s right. ASQA Legal has a duty to not to engage in legal tactics. In fact, ASQA has a positive duty to be fair and maintain proper standards in litigation.

This principle is known as the model litigant obligation and applies to all government agencies. Despite having this obligation, many RTOs who are involved in compliance related disputes with ASQA feel that they are experiencing anything but “model” behaviour from ASQA, inside and outside the Tribunal.

The Model Litigant Obligation

In simple terms, the model litigant obligation requires the government (including ASQA) to act honestly and fairly during court and Tribunal cases. Specifically, the Legal Services Directions 2017 explains government bodies are obliged to be a model litigant and should always:

l deal with claims promptly without causing delay

l act consistently in all matters

l attempt to avoid, prevent and reduce the scope of litigation

l keep costs as low as possible

l try not take advantage of the other party, especially if they lack resources, and

l avoid relying on technical defences.

The obligation does not mean that ASQA lawyers must be kittens in the court room. It does not prevent ASQA from acting firmly to advance its interests.

The model litigant obligation is a well established legal principle that applies to all government agencies and government lawyers. Even as far back as the 1940s the courts recognised that government should “serve the public interest for which it was created”1 because it is “the source and fountain of justice”.2

In addition, ASQA has an obligation to assist the Tribunal under section 33 (1AA) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act). This section requires that ASQA mustfocus on assisting the Tribunal to make the correct decision, rather than defending its own original decision. This duty to assist the Tribunal means ASQA should be:

l making information easily available to the Tribunal

l avoiding delays, and

l actively presenting new material (such as evidence of remedial action).

Further, ASQA’s legal practitioners have additional general duties to the Tribunal. These include the duty not to mislead the Tribunal regarding facts or law, the duty to produce all relevant documents under section 37 AAT Act and the duty to disclose the whole of the law, even if they believe it to be unhelpful or inapplicable.

So, is ASQA the “model litigant” or the “malicious litigant”?

Duties, principles, obligations and laws exist yet, many say, ASQA does not relent.

Andrew Laming MP is of the opinion that ASQA is failing in its model litigant obligations.

Mr Laming states ASQA is “using the AAT as a vehicle for extinguishing RTOs” for the “purposes of legal expense, reputational damage and delay”. These tactics fly in the face of ASQA’s duty to act honestly and fairly – to behave as a model litigant.

Where the model litigant principle requires ASQA to act consistently in all cases and reduce the scope of litigation, Mr Laming reports of inconsistent auditors and prosecution for petty breaches.

Mr Laming also comments on the matter of stays, a crucial aspect of most RTOs’ successful appeal against an ASQA decision:

I'm disturbed that virtually every application for a stay may now be refused for no good reason that I can see. A stay is a very important legal option that should be available and should be offered by a model litigant—in this case, ASQA.

Watch Andrew Laming MP’s full speech here.

The Tribunal has noticed ASQA’s model litigant failings too.

In a case last year,3 the Tribunal found that ASQA was being “unnecessarily obstructive” in the proceeding. The member said:

ASQA ’s role in these proceedings is that of a model litigant… I accept that ASQA is entitled to act firmly and properly to protect its interests… however when litigation descends into being unnecessarily obstructive and combative, it is of no assistance to the Tribunal.

If you believe that ASQA is not behaving like a model litigant, what can you do?

RTOs have limited recourse if ASQA fails in its model litigant duties in the Tribunal. An RTO can submit a complaint to ASQA. ASQA can take up to 90 days to investigate and respond. Additionally, after exhausting avenues for an internal complaint, an RTO may submit a complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for further investigation which can take another 3 to 6 months. However, if a matter is before the Tribunal, an RTO generally needs the issue to be resolved immediately.

So, the best hope RTOs have is to raise the issue with the Tribunal. If you believe that ASQA may not be behaving like a model litigant in the course of any proceedings before the Tribunal, speak up then and there. Be sure to remind the Tribunal of ASQA’s model litigant obligations.

For advice on your rights and assistance, speak with your lawyer.

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2Mj8i43

Under the Standards for VET Regulators 2015 (“the Standards”) ASQA must have a policy to manage and respond to complaints about its regulatory practices. This is called the Policy for managing complaints about ASQA (“the Policy”).

Who can make a complaint?

Anyone can make a complaint about ASQA and it can be done anonymously. If you make a complaint anonymously ASQA may not proceed to investigate unless there is sufficient information provided. ASQA must properly consider your complaint under the Policy.

What can you complain about?

• The handling of your application for registration by ASQA;

• Information or the lack of information provided to you by ASQA; and

• The actions of ASQA employees – this includes its auditors and other staff members.

When doesn’t the Policy apply?

The Policy does not apply to complaints about regulatory decisions such as deregistration of your RTO. It also does not apply to complaints relating to the activities of RTOs themselves or complaints about fees and charges of ASQA.

What is the process?

To make a complaint about ASQA, you need to fill out the ‘Make a complaint about ASQA’ form found here: https://www.asqa.gov.au/complaints/complaints-about-asqa.

You can send the complaint to feedback@asqa.gov.au (formal method), directly to ASQA’s postal address or in another appropriate way. Once submitted, your complaint will be acknowledged by receipt within 5 days unless the complaint is submitted through a non-formal method.

If ASQA Legal considers that it will take more than 90 days to finalise your complaint, they will advise you with their reasons. Once ASQA completes the investigation, you will be notified what the outcome has been.

Procedural Fairness

Throughout the investigation of your complaint ASQA needs to follow the requirements of procedural fairness and natural justice.

ASQA must provide both you and the person/s subject to your complaint the right to be heard. This means that if you complain about an individual directly that unless extenuating circumstances apply, they will be provided with a copy of your complaint. ASQA must also ensure there is no bias in relation to the investigation or finalisation of your complaint.

Document disclosure

Throughout the investigation of your complaint, ASQA must be transparent in how and which documents they provide to you. If you are concerned that ASQA is not giving you all the information you have asked for, then you may consider submitting a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. For more information on how to lodge a FOI application please see: https://www.oaic.gov.au/freedom-of-information/foi-resources/foi-fact-sheets/foi-fact-sheet-6-how-to-apply.

What remedies can you expect from a complaint to ASQA?

Once you make a complaint, ASQA’s Governance, Policy and Quality team will investigate the complaint and they will prepare a report. This report includes recommendations and a written response to you.

If the complaint requires further action, then this will be included in the recommendations. The written response that you receive from ASQA will detail the outcome of the investigation and any actions that will affect you.

Still dissatisfied?

If you are still dissatisfied after your complaint has been finalised by ASQA, you may seek a review of the complaint by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This can be found here: http://www.ombudsman.gov.au. You must file a complaint with ASQA first, otherwise, the Ombudsman is unable to review the complaint.

Who is the Ombudsman?

The Ombudsman is an impartial office that investigates decisions made by government officials and agencies. ASQA is a government agency and therefore you can complain to the Ombudsman about ASQA.

Once a complaint is submitted to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman must inform the principal officer of the department or authority of the complaint. The investigation by the Ombudsman is conducted in private. The Ombudsman also has discretion as to the way the investigation is undertaken; natural justice does not need to be provided to ASQA.

What remedies can you expect from the Ombudsman?

The Ombudsman’s guiding principle is to “put a person in the position he or she would have been if no administrative problem had occurred”. Normally this occurs through a recommendation by the Ombudsman that the agency apologises. This must be a formal apology admitting fault and must include how in future this will not occur again.

Other available remedies to you include compensation under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) and/or an explanation of ASQA’s decision. Each year, theCommonwealth Ombudsman also publishes an annual report detailing what complaints the Office has dealt with.1 If ASQA’s conduct was such to warrant being published by the Ombudsman, then this is also a deterrent to ASQA being investigated by the Ombudsman.

For advice on your rights and assistance, speak with your rto lawyer

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2MsKcny

There is nothing in the initial registration requirements preventing a person from establishing an RTO for the sole purpose of selling it. There is also nothing that requires persons involved with the applicant organization to have a genuine intent of providing VET.

Seemingly, ASQA agrees with this too. In an official submission regarding the review of the NVR Act, ASQA discussed the issue of shelf RTOs and essentially admitted the absence of any legislative basis for refusing applications for this reason. In fact, ASQA proposes law reform on this very issue, stating:

ASQA proposes that the NVETR Act be amended to provide that applicants for registration or renewal of registration be required to demonstrate a genuine purpose of a commitment to providing high quality VET and the capability to do so…

This confirms the absence of a legislative requirement in the current laws. It appears that ASQA is merely exercising discretion, rather than applying the letter of the law, when it refuses a registration application because it considers there is no genuine commitment to provide VET.

Initial registration requirements

The NVR Act sets out the requirements an RTO must meet in order to be registered. These are:

· Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015

· Fit and Proper Person Requirements

· Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements

· Data Provision Requirements

· Australian Qualifications Framework

· Student assistance laws

· Material change notification requirements

· Relevant requests for information by ASQA

· Relevant directions made by ASQA

Who is the “applicant”?

As discussed above, ASQA rejects applications if it believes that the applicant has no genuine intention to provide training and assessment. Let’s assume for a minute that ASQA has the power to reject applications on this basis. If this is the case, then we must understand the definition of the “applicant”.

The NVR Act states that “a person” may apply to ASQA for registration as a RTO. However, in most cases, the applicant is not an individual, it is a private company that has been established for the sole purpose of delivering VET. Under Australian law, any company is classified as a legal person. This means that a company is separate from its shareholders, directors, management and employees. In other words, the law generally considers a company to have a separate legal identity to its owners and others who may control it. In most of the cases, ASQA has become intolerant towards initial applications for registrations. In such case, the ASQA solicitors would provide you compliance services the challenge ASQA.

Now, turning back to the question at hand. According to the law, the applicant for the initial registration is the company itself, and not its owner/shareholders etc. Therefore, if the company intends to provide VET to students, which presumably it does because it has been established exactly for that purpose, the company owner, director and staff may change, but the intention of the company remains unchanged.

Therefore, so long as the new owners intend to continue operating the company as an RTO, the applicant arguably has a genuine and continuing intention to provide vocational education and training.

Where does that leave us?

It is arguable that ASQA’s current policy to refuse applications for shelf RTOs on the basis that “the applicant does not have any genuine intention to provide vocational education and training” is legally flawed. If an individual or an organization is finding difficult in registering with RTO then CRICOS solicitor would help you to solve your problems with their cost-effective legal services.

Our vindication for this position is two-fold. Firstly, the NVR Act’s list of initial registration requirements does not require a “genuine intention” to provide VET. Secondly, ASQA’s interpretation of “applicant” is sketchy. If an individual wants to get their courses registered in CRICOS then the CRICOS law firm is there to provide consultancy services to their clients.

As far as we have been able to determine, this issue has not come before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, it is only a matter of time. In determining such a case, the Tribunal would consider whether ASQA has erred in applying the NVR Act. We anticipate clarification and guidance from the Tribunal on this topical issue.

For advice on your rights and assistance, speak with your lawyer.

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2XYztoE

In small business, the establishment phase is the most challenging. This crucial period can make or break a business and will shape the essence of the organisation for years to come. Some entrepreneurs thrive in such conditions, whereas some people struggle to keep afloat. It is common practice for one person to establish a business and, once it is established, sell it to another.

So, can you register a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) just to sell it? We unpack this question by examining the Australian Skills Quality Authority’s (ASQA) current policy and discussing the finer legal issues.

The answers might surprise you.

ASQA’s current position

ASQA reports that much of its limited resources are allocated to regulating small, newly established RTOs. In an attempt to plug this drain on its resources, ASQA has been increasing scrutiny on new entrants to the vocational education and training (VET) sector.

ASQA has a new strategy for assessing initial applications for RTO registration under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (NVR Act). In an official ASQA webcast about the changes, ASQA announced that it would no longer tolerate the practice of “harvesting” or “shelf” RTOs. According to asqa lawyer, a shelf RTO is where a person establishes and registers one or more RTOs for the purpose of selling it.

ASQA disapproves of shelf RTOs. Why? It appears their reasoning is as follows.

During the initial registration process and when an RTO changes hands, ASQA is required to scrutinise the owners. Doing these investigations twice (once for the initial registration application and again when the RTO is sold) increases ASQA’s workload. ASQA also claim the investigations prescribed by the NVR Act after an RTO is sold are less stringent than the initial registration stage.

During the webcast ASQA warned that it would reject registration applications it considered were for shelf RTOs. The reason for the refusal being that “the applicant did not have any genuine intention to provide vocational education and training.”

It appears that ASQA has remained true to its word. In the last few months, we have been made aware of a number of initial applications for registration that ASQA rejected on the basis that “the applicant did not have any genuine intention to provide vocational education and training.”

ASQA has rejected these applications because persons involved with the applicant organisation (including, its shareholders, directors, chief executive officer etc.) have established RTOs in the past and sold them shortly after registration. This extends to both applications for RTO registration under the NVR Act and applications for registration on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth) (ESOS Act).

Can ASQA reject applications because it believes “the applicant does not have any genuine intention to provide vocational education and training”? Let’s see…

Initial registration requirements

The NVR Act sets out the requirements an RTO must meet in order to be registered. These are:

· Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015

· Fit and Proper Person Requirements

· Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements

· Data Provision Requirements

· Australian Qualifications Framework

· Student assistance laws

· Material change notification requirements

· Relevant requests for information by ASQA

· Relevant directions made by ASQA

There is nothing in the initial registration requirements preventing a person from establishing an RTO for the sole purpose of selling it. There is also nothing that requires persons involved with the applicant organisation to have a genuine intent of providing VET.

Seemingly, ASQA agrees with this too. In an official submission regarding the review of the NVR Act, ASQA discussed the issue of shelf RTOs and essentially admitted the absence of any legislative basis for refusing applications for this reason. In fact, ASQA proposes law reform on this very issue, stating:

ASQA proposes that the NVETR Act be amended to provide that applicants for registration or renewal of registration be required to demonstrate a genuine purpose of a commitment to providing high quality VET and the capability to do so…

This confirms the absence of a legislative requirement in the current laws. It appears that ASQA is merely exercising discretion, rather than applying the letter of the law, when it refuses a registration application because it considers there is no genuine commitment to provide VET.

Who is the “applicant”?

As discussed above, ASQA rejects applications if it believes that the applicant has no genuine intention to provide training and assessment. Let’s assume for a minute that ASQA has the power to reject applications on this basis. If this is the case, then we must understand the definition of the “applicant”.

The NVR Act states that “a person” may apply to ASQA for registration as a RTO. However, in most cases, the applicant is not an individual, it is a private company that has been established for the sole purpose of delivering VET. Under Australian law, any company is classified as a legal person. This means that a company is separate from its shareholders, directors, management and employees. In other words, the law generally considers a company to have a separate legal identity to its owners and others who may control it.

Now, turning back to the question at hand. According to the law, the applicant for the initial registration is the company itself, and not its owner/shareholders etc. Therefore, if the company intends to provide VET to students, which presumably it does because it has been established exactly for that purpose, the company owner, director and staff may change, but the intention of the company remains unchanged.

Therefore, so long as the new owners intend to continue operating the company as an RTO, the applicant arguably has a genuine and continuing intention to provide vocational education and training.

Where does that leave us?

It is arguable that ASQA’s current policy to refuse applications for shelf RTOs on the basis that “the applicant does not have any genuine intention to provide vocational education and training” is legally flawed.

Our vindication for this position is two-fold. Firstly, the NVR Act’s list of initial registration requirements does not require a “genuine intention” to provide VET. Secondly, ASQA’s interpretation of “applicant” is sketchy.

As far as we have been able to determine, this issue has not come before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, it is only a matter of time. In determining such a case, the Tribunal would consider whether ASQA has erred in applying the NVR Act. We anticipate clarification and guidance from the Tribunal on this topical issue.

For advice on your rights and assistance, speak with your lawyer.

Zmarak Zhouand, Principal Solicitor

rto.legal | (e) z@rto.legal | (t) 0478 393 502 | (w) www.rto.legal

Disclaimer: This article has been based on Australian law and practices current as at the date of publication. Information contained in this article constitutes legal information and should not be viewed as legal advice. You should consult with a lawyer before you rely on this information.

rto.legal – legal and compliance services, only for RTOs

rto.legal is a commercial law and compliance firm operating out of Brisbane, Queensland, and focuses on exclusively supporting the legal and compliance needs of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and those seeking to become RTOs throughout Australia.

The rto legal firm provides support to RTOs through the delivery of high-quality and cost-effective legal and compliance services based on a deep understanding of the RTO business, and a flexible and highly competitive fee structure.

Why rto.legal

Because we’ve been there, and we understand.

We understand: (a) what you went through to establish your RTO; (b) how much time, money and hard work you invested to make it a success; and (c) in the current environment, what you need to do to keep your investment safe.

The investment required start and operate an RTO is significant.

This risk of potentially losing everything because of regulatory non-compliance is ever present.

ASQA is growing increasingly intolerant of non-compliant operators and is more inclined to impose sanctions including cancelling existing registrations or rejecting initial applications for registration.

Many people, despite having strong cases, cannot afford to pay the legal fees needed to challenge ASQA decisions.

Consequently, they accept decisions that they may feel were baseless or unfair.

There is no doubt that adherence to the VET Quality Framework is a must for all RTOs and those seeking to become RTOs.

However, no-one should have to accept a baseless or unfair decision because of the potentially high legal fees associated with challenging such a decision.

We are here to help by supporting you with high-quality legal and compliance services and a flexible and highly competitive fee structure.

Services and capabilities

We offer a full commercial law and compliance services including in relation to the following.

· Contesting ASQA decisions – internally with ASQA, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the courts.

· Applying for initial registration, meeting the requirements of ongoing registration, making changes to a registration and renewing or withdrawing registration.

· Continuing compliance with the VET Quality Framework.

· Representation on ASQA audits.

· Training partnerships, sub-contracting and training delivery.

· Business disposals and acquisitions.

Our Principal

The firm is led by its principal, Zmarak Zhouand.

· Zmarak is a rto lawyer qualified in Australia and New York with almost 20 years experience.

· He focuses exclusively on the vocational education and training (VET) sector.

· Zmarak has worked in-house and in private practice in Australia and abroad – with leading law firms and major businesses.

· He has owned and been the CEO of CRICOS and domestic RTOs.

· Zmarak understands RTOs and the complex legal and compliance environment in which they operate.

· He is technically strong, commercial and provides high-quality, practical and cost-effective services.

· Zmarak’s services are based on a deep understanding of his clients’ requirements in the context of their business objectives.

· He works with his clients to build strong relationships and is generally available 24/7.

· Our fees are very competitive and we are generally flexible regarding fee arrangements.

· We understand that clients may have different levels of ability to pay costs.

· We provide full costs disclosure on every matter, both initially and on an ongoing disclosure basis.

· We are open to both fixed-fee and time-based costing (with or without a fee cap).

· In dispute matters involving ASQA, we are also happy to look at contingency fee arrangements – where you only pay if we succeed in your case against ASQA – subject to conditions. We will consider contingency fee arrangements on a case by case basis.

· Overall, we believe that fees for my services should be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the instructions. The circumstances which may affect the level of fees include the following.

o Time spent on the matter

o Monetary amount involved

o Specialist legal knowledge required

o Number and length of documents

o Place and time of day at which the work was carried out

o Importance and urgency of the matter to you

o Complexity of the matter.

o Time spent on a matter will be one, but not the only factor considered in assessing the level of fees to be charged.

We will always be willing to discuss the basis for charging a matter at the outset.

Our values

· It is an honour to serve our clients in their moments of need.

· We serve our clients with a dedication to excellence, responsiveness, and caring and always with a sense of humble appreciation for the trust placed upon us.

· Our lifeblood has always been and always will be the recommendations of clients.

· Our success depends the satisfaction of our clients.

· The best marketing we can do is good work.

· We aim to exceed expectations.

· We focus on results, not activities.

· We view every client’s problem as if it were our own.

· We believe that every client should receive not only a high level of legal representation but also a feeling of service and caring.

· No result is positive and no victory is absolute if a client has felt that their needs were not understood and addressed or that they did not receive our very best.

Contact

Email: z@rto.legal

Phone: +61 478 393 502

Web: www.rto.legal

Copyright 2019 Zhouand Pty Ltd ACN 630 717 976

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2VZSjLm

Your Registered Training Organisation’s (RTO) has received notice from the Australia Skill Quality Authority (ASQA) that your RTO registration will be cancelled in 28 days.

What do you do? Read this article.

First things first, seek legal advice

When the future of your business hangs in the balance, there is no time to delay. You should seek legal advice ASAP to ensure you do all you can to protect your RTO. A legal professional can assess your case and help you take the necessary steps to keep your RTO operating.

One of the options your lawyer may suggest is to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (also known as the AAT) for a review of ASQA’s decision. The General Division of the tribunal will look at the ASQA’s decision to cancel your registration again and make a new decision. Luckily, the tribunal can consider new information and further steps your rto law firm has taken to be compliant with RTO laws and the regulations.

Applying to have the registration cancellation decision reviewed is important, but it might take months for you to get a hearing date with the tribunal; and that 28 day cut off is looming!

In this case, your lawyer may also suggest that you apply to the tribunal for a stay order of the ASQA decision. The effect of a stay order is that the registration cancellation decision is stayed, meaning it will only come into force if the tribunal affirms the decision.

How to apply for a stay order

Applying for a stay requires you to fill in some paperwork. To make a strong application, you need to fully understand the ASQA decision and your basis for asking for the stay order.

You can apply for a stay order with the tribunal. Usually you will apply for a stay order and a review of the cancellation decision at the same time. The tribunal will make its decision on the stay order first, because it is a preliminary matter with a tight timeframe.

You should apply for the stay order and the decision review within 28 days of receiving ASQA’s registration cancellation decision. If you are later than this time, you can apply for an extension of time, but it is generally preferable to apply for your stay order ASAP.

In your stay application, you must describe the decision, the order you are seeking and your grounds for the request. You should also send a copy of the ASQA decision. You can upload your application and supporting documents via the tribunal’s website, or you can email, fax or post it.

Remember, a stay application is not a review of ASQA’s decision. It is a preliminary matter that, if approved by the tribunal, will allow you to keep operating your RTO until the tribunal determines whether it agrees or disagrees with ASQA’s decision to cancel your registration.

Legal assistance with applying for your stay order is strongly recommended.

What does the tribunal consider in deciding whether to grant a stay order?

After the tribunal receives an application for a stay order, they will contact asqa legal to ask them if they oppose the stay. If ASQA is not opposed to the stay, then the tribunal will usually grant the stay order without a hearing. If however, ASQA opposes the stay, then the matter will proceed to a hearing.

The tribunal considers a number of factors in deciding whether to approve your application for a stay order. These factors may include the following.

The prospects of success: whether the tribunal considers you will be successful in your appeal of the ASQA’s decision to cancel your registration. Here the tribunal will consider the ASQA’s decision to cancel your registration and whether you have taken any steps to fix your non-compliance issues.

The consequence for the applicant: whether you will suffer any harmful consequences if the ASQA decision comes into effect before the tribunal has the opportunity to make a new decision about your registration. Here the tribunal will consider your financial situation and other relevant factors.

The public interest: whether it is in the public interest for the stay to be granted. Here the tribunal might consider any consequences for your current and future students as well as other factors.

The consequences for the respondent: whether ASQA will be able to carry out its functions if the stay order is granted.

Whether the application for review would be rendered nugatory if a stay were not granted: whether your RTO would suffer irreparable damage if the stay order is not granted. Here the tribunal will again consider the consequences for you.

Other matters that are relevant: may include the length of time that the decision has already been in place or the gap between the hearing for the stay and the hearing of the cancellation decision.

The tribunal will weigh up all relevant factors and make its decision. Although all factors are considered, the first one, “prospects of success”, is very important. To assess this factor the tribunal will consider whether the ASQA decision to cancel your registration is correct. If you can demonstrate that you have fixed (or are taking steps to fix) your non-compliance issues, the tribunal might consider your “prospects of success” to be high, therefore is more likely to approve the stay order.

How to prepare for the stay order hearing

To prepare for your stay order hearing you should gather relevant documents and information in support of your case.

For example, if you believe your RTO would go bankrupt between the time of the registration cancelation date and your appeal case, you should provide financial predictions from your accountant and bank statements to support this claim. Similarly, if the decision to cancel your registration was because you were non-compliant with the Standards for RTOs (2015) but you have now fixed the problem, you should show the tribunal evidence that you have rectified this issue.

You should also consult a legal professional for assistance with this.

What is the effect of stay?

If the tribunal approves your stay order application, this means that the ASQA decision is stayed (not in effect) until the tribunal makes a new decision about your registration. This is good news!

Usually, the tribunal will approve a stay but set conditions for your RTO. This is called a conditional stay. These conditions will depend on your RTO’s own circumstances. For example, a condition of the stay order may be that you cannot enrol new students or that you must do regular reports to the ASQA.

Although an unconditional stay is possible, generally speaking the tribunal will approve a conditional stay and impose conditions on your RTO whilst you wait for the appeal of the cancellation decision.

If the conditions the tribunal impose are too strict, you can appeal the conditions of the stay. For this, legal assistance is recommended.

What if the stay order isn’t granted?

Not all stay orders are granted. Unfortunately, even when RTOs have taken steps to fix their non-compliance issues the tribunal sometimes refuses the stay order application. This does not mean that your registration cancellation appeal will be unsuccessful, but it is generally an indication that you need to do some work on your case before the hearing.

If the stay order is not granted, the ASQA decision to cancel your registration will come into affect on the date ASQA or the tribunal decides.

You can appeal the stay decision, for this you should seek legal advice.

Zmarak Zhouand, Principal | rto.legal | (w) rto.legal | (e) z@rto.legal | (t) +61 478 393 502

Disclaimer: This article has been based on Australian law and practices current as at the date of publication. Information contained in this article constitutes legal information and should not be viewed as legal advice. You should consult with a lawyer before you rely on this information.

About rto.legal

rto.legal is a legal and compliance firm operating out of Brisbane, Queensland, and focuses exclusively on supporting the legal and compliance needs of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and those seeking to become RTOs.

The rto legal firm provides commercial law and compliance support to RTOs through the delivery of expert legal and compliance services based on a deep understanding of the RTO business, and a flexible and highly competitive fee structure.

The services that we provide include the following.

· Contesting ASQA decisions – litigated and un-litigated.

· Applying for initial registration, meeting the requirements of ongoing registration, making changes to a registration and renewing or withdrawing registration.

· Continuing compliance with the VET Quality Framework.

· Representation on ASQA audits.

· Intellectual property within RTO course materials.

· Training partnerships, sub-contracting and training delivery.

· Business disposals and acquisitions.

The firm is led by its principal, Zmarak Zhouand.

· Zmarak is a lawyer qualified in Australia and New York with almost 19 years experience.

· He is a vocational education and training (VET) sector legal and compliance specialist.

· Zmarak has worked in-house and in private practice in Australia and abroad – with leading law firms and major businesses.

· He has owned and been the CEO of CRICOS and domestic RTOs.

· Zmarak understands RTOs and the complex legal and compliance environment in which they operate.

· He is technically strong, commercial and provides high-quality, practical and cost-effective services.

· Zmarak’s services are based on a deep understanding of my clients’ requirements in the context of their business objectives.

· He works with his clients to build strong relationships and is generally available 24/7.

Fees

Our fees are very competitive and we are generally flexible regarding fee arrangements.

We understand that clients may have different levels of ability to pay costs.

We provide full costs disclosure on every matter, both initially and on an ongoing disclosure basis.

We are open to both fixed-fee and time-based costing (with or without a fee cap).

In dispute matters involving ASQA, we are also happy to look at contingency fee arrangements – where you only pay if we succeed in your case against ASQA. We will determine contingency fee arrangements on a case by case basis.

Overall, we believe that fees for our services should be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the instructions. The circumstances which may affect the level of fees include the following.

· Time spent on the matter

· Monetary amount involved

· Specialist legal knowledge required

· Number and length of documents

· Place and time of day at which the work was carried out

· Importance and urgency of the matter to you

· Complexity of the matter.

Time spent on a matter will be one, but not the only factor considered in assessing the level of fees to be charged.

We will always be willing to discuss the basis for charging a matter at the outset.

Our values

It is an honour to serve our clients in their moments of need.

We serve our clients with a dedication to excellence, responsiveness, and caring and always with a sense of humble appreciation for the trust placed upon us.

Our lifeblood has always been and always will be the recommendations of clients.

Our success depends the satisfaction of our clients.

The best marketing we can do is good work.

We aim to exceed expectations.

We focus on results, not activities.

We view every client's problem as if it were our own.

We believe that every client should receive not only a high level of legal representation but also a feeling of service and caring.

No result is positive and no victory is absolute if a client has felt that their needs were not understood and addressed or that they did not receive our very best.

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2YG1L8p

In the current environment, an increasing number of people feel that they and their Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) have suffered loss and damage due to what they believe are wrongful acts or omissions on the part the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).

The question that these people want answered is:“Can I sue ASQA?”

Read on for more details.

(1) Reviewing a decision vs. suing ASQA

There is a difference between applying to have a decision reviewed and suing for damages.

If asqa solicitor makes a decision that you disagree with (for example a decision to cancel your RTO registration), you can usually apply to review the decision internally with ASQA and/or with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

A review is an administrative process where the decision maker (either ASQA or the tribunal) will make a new decision. Reviewing an ASQA decision is different from suing ASQA.

You would sue ASQA to recover loss and damage that they have wrongfully caused.

If you have suffered a loss or damage because of an allegedwrongful act or omissionon the part of ASQA, in theory, provided you can satisfy the elements of a cause of action (such as negligence), you maysue ASQA for damages.

So what’s stopping you?

(2) Crown immunity: ASQA protected from legal action

Under the National Vocational Regulator Act(NVR Act) ASQA has privileges and immunities of the Crown and cannot be sued where it acts on “good faith”.

This means ASQA is legally immune from being suedwhere the loss or damage is caused by something ASQA did (or did not do) in “good faith”.

ASQA would be deemed to be acting in good faith if it honestly believes that it is acting in furtherance of its statutory duties – even if it is negligent or makes a wrong decision.

Accordingly, even where ASQA is negligent, and such negligence causes you or your RTO loss and damages, provided ASQA acted in “good faith”, you can’t sue ASQA.

But,there are exceptions.

(3) Not acting in good faith

If ASQA, or one of its representatives (for example, an auditor), does not act in good faith and you or your RTO suffers loss or damage, you may be able to sue ASQA or its representative.

This is a complex area of law and beyond the scope of this short article.You should seek legal advice if you believe your case might fall under this exception.

(4) Discretionary avenues for recovery

In circumstances where it can be established that you suffered loss or damage due to ASQA’s negligence, defective administration or other special circumstance, you can seek compensation in the following ways.

· Payment in settlement of a claim

· Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) scheme

· Act of Grace payment

All these schemes are discretionary meaning that there is no obligation to pay compensation of any sort. They are based on the premise that there is a moral, rather than legal, obligation to make things right.

(a) Payment in settlement of a claim

Making a compensation claim and requesting settlement is usually the first step. You can make a claim directly to ASQA. The claim must be in writing (usually a letter) and include the details of the alleged negligence and the subsequent loss and damage suffered.

If asqa lawyer agrees to pay you compensation, it will be an ex-gratia payment, meaning it is not an admission of liability ASQA. If ASQA does not compensate you, you can consider making a CDDA Scheme of act of grace application.

(b) CDDA Scheme

The CDDA Scheme aims to rectify defective administration. Defective administration is defined as:

· a specific and unreasonable lapse in complying with existing administrative procedures; or

· an unreasonable failure to institute appropriate administrative procedures; or

· an unreasonable failure to give to (or for) an applicant, the proper advice that was within the officer's power and knowledge to give (or reasonably capable of being obtained by the officer to give); or

· giving advice to (or for) an applicant that was, in all the circumstances, incorrect or ambiguous.

The aim of the CDDA scheme is to put you in the same position you would have been, had there been no error or negligence. So, if you can prove that defective administration took place, then the CDDA scheme may, but is not obligated to, compensate you for your loss or damage.

(c) Acts of grace payment

An act of grace payment is a special 'gift of money' by the Commonwealth government. Act of grace payments are very rare. According to the Commonwealth Department of Finance:

Act of grace payments are a last resort for providing compensation to persons who may have been unfairly disadvantaged by the Commonwealth but who have no legal claim against it.

Circumstances where an act of grace payment might be made include:

• where ASQA’s involvement had an unintended outcome
• where the application of legislation or policy has resulted in an unintended, inequitable or anomalous effect
• where the paramount obligation is moral, rather than legal.

The Department of Finance handles act of grace payment applications.

(5) Way forward

Suing ASQA or one of its representatives, or making a claim under one or more of the discretionary schemes, can be very tricky and you want to get it right, the first time.

For advice on your rights and assistance with making your claim, speak with your lawyer.

Disclaimer: This article has been based on Australian law and practices current as at the date of publication. Information contained in this article constitutes legal information and should not be viewed as legal advice. You should consult with a lawyer before you rely on this information.

About rto.legal

rto.legal is a legal and compliance firm operating out of Brisbane, Queensland, and focuses exclusively on supporting the legal and compliance needs of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and those seeking to become RTOs.

The firm provides commercial law and compliance support to RTOs through the delivery of expert legal and compliance services based on a deep understanding of the RTO business, and a flexible and highly competitive fee structure.

The services that we provide include the following.

· Contesting ASQA decisions – litigated and un-litigated.

· Applying for initial registration, meeting the requirements of ongoing registration, making changes to a registration and renewing or withdrawing registration.

· Continuing compliance with the VET Quality Framework.

· Representation on ASQA audits.

· Intellectual property within RTO course materials.

· Training partnerships, sub-contracting and training delivery.

· Business disposals and acquisitions.

The firm is led by its principal, Zmarak Zhouand.

· Zmarak is a lawyer qualified in Australia and New York with almost 19 years experience.

· He is a vocational education and training (VET) sector legal and compliance specialist.

· Zmarak has worked in-house and in private practice in Australia and abroad – with leading law firms and major businesses.

· He has owned and been the CEO of cricos law firm and domestic RTOs.

· Zmarak understands RTOs and the complex legal and compliance environment in which they operate.

· He is technically strong, commercial and provides high-quality, practical and cost-effective services.

· Zmarak’s services are based on a deep understanding of our clients’ requirements in the context of their business objectives.

· He works with his clients to build strong relationships and is generally available 24/7.

Our fees are very competitive and we are generally flexible regarding fee arrangements.

We understand that clients may have different levels of ability to pay costs.

We provide full costs disclosure on every matter, both initially and on an ongoing disclosure basis.

We are open to both fixed-fee and time-based costing (with or without a fee cap).

In dispute matters involving ASQA, we are also happy to look at contingency fee arrangements – where you only pay if we succeed in your case against ASQA. We will determine contingency fee arrangements on a case by case basis.

Overall, we believe that fees for our services should be fair and reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the instructions. The circumstances which may affect the level of fees include the following.

· Time spent on the matter

· Monetary amount involved

· Specialist legal knowledge required

· Number and length of documents

· Place and time of day at which the work was carried out

· Importance and urgency of the matter to you

· Complexity of the matter.

Time spent on a matter will be one, but not the only factor considered in assessing the level of fees to be charged.

We will always be willing to discuss the basis for charging a matter at the outset.

Our values

It is an honour to serve our clients in their moments of need.

We serve our clients with a dedication to excellence, responsiveness, and caring and always with a sense of humble appreciation for the trust placed upon us.

Our lifeblood has always been and always will be the recommendations of clients.

Our success depends the satisfaction of our clients.

The best marketing we can do is good work.

We aim to exceed expectations.

We focus on results, not activities.

We view every client's problem as if it were our own.

We believe that every client should receive not only a high level of legal representation but also a feeling of service and caring.

No result is positive and no victory is absolute if a client has felt that their needs were not understood and addressed or that they did not receive our very best.

Original Reference: http://bit.ly/2YD8Ar1  

Do you want to establish a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) in Australia? Providing students with nationally recognised vocational courses is the goal of most private colleges, but achieving RTO status and registering accredited courses can be tricky. If your initial or renewal application is rejected by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) don’t delay; seek legal assistance from a specialised ASQA solicitor.

ASQA solicitors are experts in legal and compliance issues that specifically apply to RTOs. ASQA law and regulation is a complex and detailed area of governmental administrative law and it can take years to become a proficient . Offering practical and up to date legal advice, ASQA Solicitors can solve your issues whilst increase your own understanding of RTO laws. They can help to lay a strong foundation for your new RTO or smooth out issues that have arisen during the running of your business.

Everyone in the RTO industry plans to build an organisation that can deliver quality-assured vocational education that results in their students achieving their career goals. Along the way, RTOs must continually meet the mandatory requirements of VET education and training that is monitored by ASQA. If ASQA becomes aware of any non-compliance, this can eventuate in the cancellation or suspension of your registration.

RTO legal services provide compliance and commercial legal services, including:

• Representation on ASQA audits

• Withdrawing or renewing registration

• Making alteration to a registration

• Business acquisitions and disposals

If you require assistance with these issues or feel confused about RTO compliance, make an appointment to chat with an ASQA solicitor. And remember, ASQA Solicitors can also assist you in contesting ASQA decisions or request ASQA to reconsider a compliance audit.

About rto.legal:

rto.legal is a trusted name in ASQA legal representation and advisory services.

rto.legal consistently provides reliable legal representation for RTO organizations. rto.legal’s specialised legal practitioners can help their clients overcome RTO issues and offer flexible and economical fees.

Zmarak Zhouand, Principal Solicitor, is a licensed RTO lawyer who has over 20 years experience in RTO compliance and legal services. Having owned and operated RTOs himself, Zmarak understands the complexity of the RTO environment and navigates the regulatory system with ease to fulfil his client’s objectives.

Engager to.legal today to eliminate obstacles in the best possible way.

For more details, visit http://rto.legal/.

Original Reference: https://bre.is/MdeFTkZOH

If you intend to provide training and education, for local or international students, one thing is for certain: Australian education laws and regulations must be complied with.

Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) are organizations that the Australian government has approved to provide training courses across Australia. RTOs can be government or privately owned and are regulated by the Australian Skills Quality Authority, also known as the ASQA.

“Credibility” is a big word for every student. Becoming a RTO will make your training college more credible and endeavor trust in the eyes of prospective students. The RTO title will give your students the assurance that they are dealing with a reputable organization and they will trust that they are in good hands.

As well as credibility, students need accreditation. In order to deliver nationally recognized training (and for your students to attain nationally accredited qualifications)training colleges must obtain RTO status through registration with ASQA. After ASQA has approved your RTO registration, you can advertise your college as a RTO.

Establishing a RTO is not an easy journey. You must go through a complex series of regulatory and compliance steps before obtaining your RTO status. If you are not well versed in RTO laws and registration, the process can be daunting and can result in your application being refused by the ASQA. If you are facing compliance and other legal challenges while registering or operating a RTO, ask for guidance and assistance from an expert ASQA Solicitor who can offer precise advice on rto law firm.

rto legal firm is a leader in the industry, offering full compliance and legal services for RTOs. The team at rto.legal helps you meet the legislative requirements of registration and registration renewal with peace of mind. rto.legal provides client-focused advice and truly believe that every client is entitled to receive a high level of legal representation. No matter how big or small your case, rto.legal will always be there to provide specialised legal advice and discuss all aspects of running RTO business with you.

Zmarak Zhouand, Principal Lawyer of rto.legal, has 20 years of notable experience under his belt across the legal and RTO business sectors. As a former CEO and educational trainer of multiple Australian RTOs and CRICOSs, he is known to provide practical, high-quality and cost-effective services. Zmarak makes himself available to his clients 24/7. His multidisciplinary experience allows him to build strong and reliable relationship with clients. If you are struggling to find the right legal services for your RTO, it is time to make a move. Contact rto.legal today!

For more details, visit http://rto.legal.

Original Reference: https://bre.is/B5k1uMiyr

It doesn't matter whether you have 10 or 10,000 students enrolled in your institute; compliance with legalities is a must! Don’t risk getting stuck if your Registered Training Organisation (RTO) application gets rejected or if your course does not receive the accreditation you need. These mishaps occur more frequently when RTO entrepreneurs are not familiar with the laws and regulations that govern RTOs.

Is your RTO facing compliance or legal issues? Don’t worry, rto.legal can help you. rto.legal offers clients expert assistance and advice that only a specialised RTO law firm can deliver. Our complete understanding of the RTO industry and Australian Skills Qualification Authority (ASQA) function and jurisdiction sets us apart from other legal services in the industry.

rto.legal is a leader in the sector, a one-stop-source offering all compliance and legal services for your RTO. rto.legal can assist RTOs with every step along the way including rto registration, accreditation, registration renewal and appealing ASQA decisions.

Legal fees for appeals in the Australian Appeals Tribunal (AAT) are expensive, and can be unaffordable for some clients. rto.legal believe that every client has the right to a high level of legal representation, and offer their clients real world advice, creative solutions and have a competitive and flexible fee structure.

ASQA, as the governing regulator for RTOs, are intolerant of incompliance and can take action against RTOs without warning. If you are facing these hurdles, do not suffer in silence. Give rto.legal a call today. Through the help of the experienced team atrto.legal, you will be given a voice to question the asqa decision.

Apart from legal compliance services, rto.legal offer the following capabilities and services, based on:

· Training partnerships

· Training delivery and sub-contracting

· Representation for ASQA audits

· Making changes to registration

· Business acquisitions and disposals.

No matter how big or small your problem is, rto.legal are here to discuss all the aspects of running a RTO business with you.

Zmark Zhousand, Principal Lawyer at rto.legal, is an eminent RTO lawyer with almost 20 years experience practising law. As an owner of a CRICOS RTO himself, Zmarak’s unique knowledge of both the legal and RTO worlds means he speaks your language. Struggle no longer; renown for providing practical, high-quality and cost-effective services, Zmarak and his team at rto.legal are here for you. rto.legal’s name says it all – start consulting with the right legal services today.

For more details, visit http://rto.legal.

Original Reference: https://goo.gl/1FwWgE

Are you setting up a Registered Training Organisation (RTO)? Establishing an RTO is an exciting and, at times, overwhelming task, involving substantial investment of time, money and energy. Even though it’s a tough road, any entrepreneurial venture (RTO or otherwise) is a brave step that can lead to massive rewards. So, what’s the best way to get your RTO business kick-started? Read on for our tips.

1. Your students are your business

When establishing a RTO, you not only have a responsibility for yourself and your new business, but you also are responsibility for providing your students with the best possible education and training. You must provide compliant, high quality education to the students, while supporting them to achieve their professional goals. The students’ best interests are paramount to your RTO.

2. Know the relevant rules and regulations

For this, you need to get familiar with the procedural requirements of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and the VET Quality Framework – the legal and regulatory framework governing Australia’s vocational education and training sector. ASQA is the Australian government’s regulatory body for RTOs. All RTOs are required to follow the rules, regulations and registration procedures set down by government and administered by the ASQA.ASQA is also the one-stop-shop for RTO registration and course accreditation. Without knowledge and understanding of your legal obligations, establishing and sustaining a successful RTO can be a complicated and dangerous process. Have you got a question about RTO regulation? Ask rto.legal.

3. Do your research

It’s simple: when you are planning your RTO business research and gather as much information as possible about all aspects of running a RTO. An in-depth understanding of registration, accreditation, auditing and other regulations is needed before you can properly start. We recommend you consult an expert for advice. Rto.legal can help.

4. Consult an expert

You should find an experienced RTO lawyer who can assist you to navigate the process. Getting your business off the ground in the right way is an investment in your RTO’s future. If ASQA has denied your RTO registration application, cancelled or suspended your licence or placed conditions on your operation, a RTO lawyer can help you move forward.

rto.legal is an acclaimed law firm offering specialised legal assistance for your RTO business. The firm’s Principal Lawyer, Zmarak Zhouand, is a RTO expert who specialises in providing entrepreneurs with the establishment of their RTO venture. He can also help you to contest both litigated and un-litigated ASQA decisions.

About rto.legal:

rto.legal is a prominent law firm based in Brisbane offering professional legal and compliance services for RTO across Australia.

For more details, visit http://rto.legal/ today.

Original Reference: https://goo.gl/zdKqV1

Registered Training Organisations, also known as RTOs, are organisations with the purpose to offer vocational education and training (VET) to their students.VET, as opposed to higher education (i.e. university)offers students an opportunity to learn the required practical skills and knowledge to gain employment in their desired field.

There are more than 5000 RTOs in Australia covering a wide range of subjects and offering tens of thousands of different courses. When deciding whether to start your own RTO you should consider what you can offer students. To thrive in such a competitive market, your RTO must offer students an exceptional and unique learning experience.

Opening a RTO requires a considerable investment of time, energy and funds. And, as with any entrepreneurial venture, there is a risk of losing everything you invest.The RTO sector in Australia is heavily regulated, meaning the aforementioned risk is ever present because of potential regulatory non-compliance. But as we all know, there are two sides to the coin: the flipside of the potential risk is the potential profits. Getting your business off the ground in the right way is an investment in your RTO’s future. To find out more about legal compliance for RTOs, consult a RTO solicitor.

And what about the responsibility that setting up a RTO carries? As a RTO business owner, you must provide students with both education and guidance, a responsibility that should not be taken lightly. You may have firm ideas of what you want to offer prospective students, but to hold the title of RTO, you must offer accredited courses. But what does offering an accredited course mean? What are the criteria for an accredited course? What if the accreditation is rejected? Now, there are a lot of pressing questions that spring to mind when this can of worms is opened.For all your questions answered, consult an ASQA solicitor today!

rto.legal can answer your every question about setting up a RTO organization. Their team offer start-up and existing RTOs legal support with all legal issues. rto.legal is owned and operated by Zmarak Zhouand, an acclaimed solicitor with20 years practice experience. The team at rto.legal understand the hardships you encounter setting up and operating a RTO. After all, it’s their business! You can trust rto.legal when you are seeking an ASQA lawyer .

For more information, visit http://rto.legal/

Original Reference: https://goo.gl/r4ZVwB