Fast Track Your Success ...
Welcome and thank you for visiting our site.
We were acknowledged by employers to be the most respected providers of certificate III aged care training in Australia, until ASQA illegally destroyed our company.
For all administrative matters relating to our operations, please call Chris Robinson, ASQA on (03) 9954 2623, 1300 701 801 or Julie Northridge on (08) 9464 4279
For all complaints please call Minister Chris Bowen's office on (02) 6277 7580 or Senator Chris Evans on (08) 9481 4844
LATEST NEWS FOR ALL STAKEHOLDERS
20 March 2013
The ATO was successful today in having Success Fast-Track Pty Ltd wound up and declared insolvent. It's not really the fault of the ATO; they have to follow their procedures.
Thanks to the honest people at ASQA, an outstanding Australian company has been destroyed. ASQA and Ministers Evans and Bowen have proven that great results, good management, hard work and prudent financial governance are worthless in Australia.
Personally, I would like to thank the Training Accreditation Council (WA), and the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) - especially Chief Commissioner Chris Robinson and Commissioner Dr, Dianne Orr for nothing.
Federal Court Statement 20 March 2013
The current dire financial position of Success Fast-Track Pty Ltd is the result of the undisputed defective administration of the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA).
ASQA repeatedly violated the NVR Act, 2011 and abused processes for a period of 8 months during 2011 and 2012 causing the financial destruction of our highly regarded training company.
Minister Chris Bowen is fully aware of these matters and is obviously happy for his national training Regulator to break the law.
No corrective action has been taken by the Minister or ASQA, and no compensation has been paid.
The public should have no faith in either.
The proposed wind-up of Success Fast-Track Pty Ltd’s would achieve nothing useful for the ATO. I do not believe there are sufficient funds available to pay the money owed to the ATO.
The only course of action likely to enable payment, is my continued pursuit of compensation on behalf of the company and its creditors:
• Requesting meeting with the Minister • Public disclosure • Meeting with the Opposition spokesperson • CDDA Scheme • Act of Grace payment
20 March 2013
Success Fast-Track is dead. Long live its spirit.
...more information soon.
7 March 2013
Minister Chris Bowen is happy for his Regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) to break the law.
Despite the obvious repeated, deliberate violations of the NVR Act, 2011, he has done nothing to hold the national training regulator to account.
He has also decided that good Australian companies can be illegally destroyed at ASQA's corrupt whim.
Clearly, the Chief Commissioner of ASQA, Chris Robinson and the other two Commissioners, Dr. Dianne Orr and ex-politician, Michael Lavarch (jobs for the boys?) are guilty of criminal negligence in our case at the very least.
There is a distinct possibility that they are corrupt as well.
However, this is of no concern to Minister Bowen; he thinks they have done a good job.
In a letter sent to Success Fast-Track Chief Executive Officer, Brett Hilder, the Minister said that 'ASQA properly carried out it's legislated functions......'
Interesting; Therefore in the Minister's mind 'properly' = 'illegal'.
We demand compensation.
Taxpayers have the right to an honest Regulator. Not the shonky shower they are paying for which is the Australian Skills Quality Authority.
27 February 2013
Why Did ASQA Destroy Our Company?
It is ludicrous of the national training regulator.... ....to financially destroy RTOs with long histories of delivering high quality training.
When a training company has:
..the endorsement of hundreds of employers in its industry sector,
..the overwhelming support of its students and ex-students over a decade,
..been commended for its levels of compliance in the past,
..rectified past non-compliances in a changing regulatory environment over ten years,
..no complaints from any employer or any student about its training delivery with any regulator for a decade,
..been a positive leader for genuine innovation in service delivery,
..assisted its industry sector employers cope with its own crushing demands,
..pulled itself up by its own bootstraps from nothing to become an Australian success story to be proud of,
....what earthly reason can there possibly be for the national training regulator to destroy such an RTO?
. . I welcome your responses. firstname.lastname@example.org
Brett Hilder CEO
There is a lot of information regarding our fight for compensation on the Linked In website.
Specifically in the 'Been ASQA Damaged?' group. Click here....
You do need to be a member of Linked In if you want to contribute a comment, but this is easy to attain. To read the posts however does not require membership.
Below is the text of our letter of appeal to the relevant Minister (now Minister Chris Bowen)....
Dear Senator Evans, (Now to The Honourable Chris Bowen)
RE: Appeal against the Decision dated 21st January 2013 on the CDDA Scheme claim lodged by the Applicant, Brett Hilder on behalf of SF-T.
Let me begin by thanking you for responding this time. I had been looking forward to a favourable decision in light of ASQA’s conduct and actions towards my company dating back to 1st of July 2011.
Needless to say I was disappointed upon reading your letter. The Ministers office has failed to properly understand the specific nature of ASQA’s conduct and actions towards our company and their consequent effects. Our contentions against ASQA and the bundles of evidence submitted by us are within the records of ASQA and the Minister’s office.
There clearly has been an ‘unreasonable failure to institute appropriate administrative procedures’ by ASQA. I therefore dispute your findings as expressed in your letter and fail to understand how you can be satisfied with the same.
This is an appeal against your decision not to pay compensation to SF-T. As a matter of convenience and ease of reference, please see the attached ‘Summary of Contentions’ in bullet points. For the record neither your letter nor any correspondence from ASQA has refuted, disputed or even addressed the specific contentions of ASQA’s defective administration.
• ‘Once a decision is made to treat a claim as a CDDA matter, it should not be handled in the same way as a legal dispute. Decision makers need to remember: • there is no onus on a CDDA applicant to prove their claim as they would need to prove a legal claim • in determining a CDDA claim, all relevant information which is readily available should be considered, even if the applicant has not provided it • a CDDA claim is to be considered from the perspective of a moral obligation and should not involve a ‘compensation minimisation’ approach • if the staff handling CDDA claims are located in an agency’s legal area or if the agency uses external legal advisers, it should be made clear to all involved, including the applicant, that the matter is not being dealt with as a legal dispute • a CDDA claim should ordinarily be granted where the material before the decision maker provides a reasonable and proper basis for compensation to be paid—legal concepts and terms such as ‘balance of probabilities’, ‘contributory negligence’ and ‘conclusive grounds’ should be avoided.
- Fact Sheet 9 Compensation for detriment caused by defective administration (Commonwealth Ombudsman)
(i) The AAT stated that SF-T NOT be put out of business permanently,
’84. ...That is a matter which means that the public interest does not require the applicant’s registration to be cancelled, i.e., the applicant to be put out of business permanently.’ - p.41 General Administrative Division, File Number(s) 2012/0709 (ii) Any sanctions against SF-T NOT be punitive in nature:
‘81. The task therefore is to identify the minimum “sanction” that needs to be imposed in order to protect the public interest. Anything greater than that would constitute the punishment of the applicant and would thus be impermissible.’ - p.41 General Administrative Division, File Number(s) 2012/0709 - (iii) It stated that SF-T was compliant with the NVR standards relating to training, (available in transcripts of proceedings from July 4, 2012),
(iv) It stated that SF-T was ‘a training provider of quality’ (available in transcripts of proceedings from July 4, 2012),
(v) ASQA’s assertions of complaints, and other justifications, contained in a letter dated 4 January, 2011 from the chief commissioner of ASQA and addressed to myself, the CEO of SF-T were shown to be false at the AAT hearing. There was no proof of ‘complaints’.
This was denied by ASQA. This in itself was a blatant breach of the provisions of the NVR Act, 2011. Tell me and the general public this is not defective administration??!! Tell me and the general public these are not actions by ASQA that are outside the laws/regulations governing this body??!! Tell me and the general public that this is not “unreasonable failure to institute appropriate administrative procedures”??!!
‘(Section) 203 Review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
(1) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a reviewable decision if the National VET Regulator has affirmed or varied the decision under section 201.’ (author’s emphasis) -National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011
There has been no process of affirming, varying or revoking the decision by ASQA against SF-T. Again, this is a blatant disregard of the provisions of the NVR Act, process and procedures by ASQA. Tell me and the general public, is this not defective administration??!!
“If it had been a perfect world ASQA would be complying with the provisions, but it is not a perfect world”!!! I t must be concluded that ASQA, and you as the Minister responsible for ASQA, accepts its guilt relating to all SF-T’s contentions of defective administration.
However, it is not too late for ASQA to redeem itself.
Be reminded, it had been less than 4 months since the new Standards came into force prior to the audits; Be reminded, we were in the process of rectifying and making the necessary changes; Be reminded, SF-T had not completed the transitional process to the new Standards from the TAC Standards being a WA registered RTO. Be reminded we were seeking clarification (refer to evidence provided), be reminded we were seeking time to update compliance. However, we were denied this opportunity. Here again, ASQA’s actions and conduct were “an unreasonable failure to give proper advice that was within their knowledge to give”.
damage to Australia’s vital VET sector. It is absolutely clear that serious instances of defective administration have taken place and are possibly still continuing with respect to other RTOs.
To allow SF-T, a company established and operating for over 10 years with a track record of having trained over 7,000 students to be severely damaged and extinguished, to allow its shareholders and directors to lose everything including their confidence in the public sector with no recourse, to allow its employees to lose their jobs with no compensation is a gross miscarriage of justice. It is in the Public Interest to be aware of such miscarriage of justice. The CDDA Scheme is in place for just this kind of event.
In particular, the needlessly draconian sanctions imposed by ASQA, that were themselves based on false justifications set out in the February Decision, were what caused much of the damage. Moreover, ASQA’s conduct dating from July 1, 2011 utterly destroyed SF-T’s capacity to operate as a financially sustainable entity.
For the record, it is my suggestion that an ‘oversight panel’ comprising six people with experience of the training sector, four of whom originating from senior roles in private training companies, should be established. It would be better able to deal with serious complaints against the national VET regulator. It might also better direct ASQA’s attentions in regard to RTOs delivering poor quality training, through communication with employers.
This panel would be reportable and answerable to the relevant Minister, and would represent a proper check on a seemingly unaccountable agency.
Senator Evans, I believe that two people of good will could resolve these matters responsibly and promptly for the benefit of all concerned. With this in mind, I am requesting a meeting with you at the earliest possible opportunity.
Brett Hilder Chief Executive Officer
Unfortunately, we are unable to conduct any training courses at this time. This has been the case since February 20, 2012 when the national VET training regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) wrongfully suspended our RTO registration with attendant draconian and punitive sanctions.
Currently (as of December, 2012) our future depends on the decision of the Minister, Senator Chris Evans. He has the authority to direct the national training regulator, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)to rectify the damage done to us, hold ASQA to account for all breaches of the NVR Act including abuses of process, and compensate us for the significant damage we have suffered as a result of their defective administration. -
- We appeal to him to direct that these things be done simply because it is the right thing to do in a fair and just society. -
- The Commonwealth Ombudsman having conducted its own investigation into ASQA's 28 breaches of the NVR Act, 2011 and abuses of process, has referred our application for rectification and compensation on to Senator Evans. -
ASQA wants to cancel our registration. They did not respond to our concerns about this matter in a letter sent to them prior to this decision.
However, we had 30 days this time to apply to have this decision reconsidered (which ASQA must do in order to comply with the NVR Act, 2011).
We will be requesting a reconsideration. However our previous experience of ASQA's conduct where they denied us the right to a reconsideration of the decision to suspend, tells us that such an application will probably be a fruitless exercise.
We earned a reputation as an oustanding provider of Certificate three aged care training. A fact which is not denied by anyone including ASQA.
A little history for those who are interested...
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is satisfied that SF-T is a training provider of quality;
This was stated during the hearing conducted on July 2-4 this year.
Even though the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld ASQA's decision to suspend our registration, it stated also that it was NOT necessary that Success Fast-Track Pty Ltd (SF-T) be put out of business permanently.
The AAT's decision is 43 pages long. Unfortunately, it was only able to consider the evidence put before it at the hearing. We were unable to present all the evidence we had due to ASQA's actions in forcing us to close all trading operations. We had no income to pay bills and therefore we could not access important compliance documentation from our sites around the country as we had defaulted on our rents. Also, all our staff members lost their jobs in February 2012 and were unable to assist. The AAT, due to limits on its jurisdiction, were also unable to consider the circumstances or nature of the original audit which was clearly seriously flawed.
For the record, ASQA itself found that SF-T is fully compliant with the NVR standards relating to training delivery. Their concerns were based around a number of peripheral administrative issues mostly of a minor nature and all easy to rectify.
This positive view of our training is shared by the aged care employers SF-T has worked with over the last decade, and the 7000+ students we have trained.
We secured documents under Freedom Of Information legislation and found that no regulator, including ASQA had received any complaints from any employer in Australia at any time regarding our training.
This is also the case in regard to all the students we have trained.
Interestingly, the ASQA chief commissioner stated in a letter to me as CEO in January 2012, that their reasons for suspending our registration with the attendant sanctions, were primarily a result of complaints they had received about the quality and duration of our training.
Nevertheless, ASQA has seen fit to close down the best provider of certificate three aged care training in the country. This calls into question ASQA's administration of its processes and procedures.
ASQA behaved in a hostile and uncooperative manner towards us right from the commencement of its formal operations in July 2011. They refused to collaborate with us at any time.
Despite repeated attempts to gain clarity around key issues in the change to a new regulator and new standards, ASQA refused to speak to us in any meaningful way, except to do harm.
Along the way, we contend that ASQA has breached the NVR Act, 2011, 28 times in their administration of matters concerning our company.
We also believe that ASQA is non-compliant with many of its own standards (SVR's). This is unacceptable for a regulator who demands full compliance from the organisations it is supposed to be regulating.
It is our view that ASQA feels it can behave in any manner it chooses, even if it means breaching the Act it is governed by.
Additionally, we are of the view that the quality of training in this country is at best, a very low priority for ASQA irrespective of its claims on its website.
By the way, thank you to all the ex-employees, friends and business associates of ours who have provided support and encouragement in our ongoing battle for justice.
We will not give up.
'ASQA is a new organisation but we feel that a number of areas need clarification. We are more than happy to collaborate and cooperate with the regulator.
We are aware that other Registered Training Organisations are facing similar challenges as we are. If you are one of these, please contact me direct on 0406 810 484 or email@example.com so we can gather information on this matter'