Australia’s national training regulator has refused the registration of yet another aspiring vocational college, after uncovering serious shortcomings in the director’s own qualifications, experience and disclosures. The case adds to escalating efforts to curb non-genuine education providers and restore integrity across the VET sector.
Pendulum College Australia, a newly formed college planning to operate in Fairfield in Sydney’s west, had been preparing to open its doors with a suite of management courses. A professionally designed website had gone live, and job advertisements for trainers were circulating online. However, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) had already flagged concerns about whether the college was fit to operate, prompting a closer examination that ultimately led to the refusal of registration.
Earlier this month, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) upheld ASQA’s stance, ruling that the regulator had compelling grounds to reject Pendulum College’s application to deliver nationally recognised training.
Integrity questions derail Pendulum College’s registration bid
Pendulum College sought approval to offer the Diploma of Leadership and Management and the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, particularly to international students. Its sole director, Mr Azher Y Mohammed Ali Al-Hadi, established the company in 2023 and positioned himself as both director and trainer for the courses.
However, during the regulatory assessment, Mr Al-Hadi conceded that he had never undertaken formal training or assessment in the qualifications he intended to teach. Instead, his own credentials had been issued entirely through Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL), and several of these issuing organisations were later found to have significant compliance breaches. One such provider had its registration cancelled outright for serious noncompliance.
The ART decision highlighted that Mr Al-Hadi initially told ASQA he had no links to other registered training organisations. This was later found to be incorrect. In subsequent disclosures, he admitted he had worked as a trainer with multiple providers and had also served as a director of several companies over the years, including Smart and Skilled Pty Ltd, CentreCare Link Pty Ltd and Renacon Group Pty Ltd. Some of these entities had ceased operations.
Although the Tribunal acknowledged that none of these external companies were directly involved in the Pendulum case, the pattern of incomplete disclosure raised red flags about transparency and governance.
Mr Al-Hadi explained that the omissions were not deliberate and stated he now understood the regulatory requirements. He also expressed a commitment to cooperate with future audits and uphold integrity standards if given the opportunity.
Questions Investigated by the Tribunal (From ART tribunal case files)
-
Whether the director (Mr Al-Hadi) held appropriate and verifiable qualifications and experience for teaching the desired management diplomas.
-
How Mr Al-Hadi obtained his credentials, specifically investigating the use of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and whether this met rigorous standards.
-
Whether Mr Al-Hadi’s earlier statements to ASQA—particularly regarding his links (or lack thereof) to other registered training organisations—were comprehensive and accurate.
-
If incomplete or inaccurate disclosures regarding business directorships, trainer roles, and company associations constituted deliberate omission or misunderstanding.
-
What role, if any, these previously undisclosed companies had in Pendulum College’s bid, and why the initial statements did not include them.
Mr Al-Hadi’s Responses
-
Mr Al-Hadi acknowledged that his own qualifications were gained entirely through RPL and did not involve formal training or assessment in the diplomas he intended to teach.
-
He explained that several RPL-issuing organisations he used were later found to have compliance issues, but he was not aware of those breaches at the time.
-
Regarding omissions, Mr Al-Hadi told the Tribunal that the absence of full directorship and business involvement disclosures was not deliberate and resulted from a genuine misunderstanding of regulatory requirements. Once notified, he provided updated and complete information.
-
He maintained that none of the external companies played a direct part in the new RTO’s operations.
-
Mr Al-Hadi expressed regret for these oversights, stated a willingness to cooperate with future audits, and asserted his intent to uphold integrity standards if registered.
Tribunal unmoved: transparency issues “undermine confidence”
In its final decision, the ART took a firm stance. General Member Smith noted that the combination of inaccuracies, delayed disclosures and missing information significantly undermined confidence that Pendulum College could operate in line with the VET Quality Framework.
The Tribunal emphasised that a training organisation’s suitability is not measured solely by its course offerings but also by the integrity and competence of its leadership. Even if strict conditions were imposed, the ART found that the college could not demonstrate the consistency, reliability and transparency required under national legislation.
The ruling stated that “a lack of transparency or a pattern of nondisclosure raises serious concerns about an applicant’s suitability to be registered”, reinforcing ASQA’s position that initial registration should not proceed.
Part of a broader crackdown across the VET sector
ASQA’s refusal to register Pendulum College marks the newest in a series of strong interventions aimed at elevating standards and removing inauthentic providers from the vocational education and training sector. Since 2024, over 15 training organisations have lost their registration, with this regulatory action impacting an estimated 30,000 to 32,000 students. Many of these cancelled RTOs were labelled “ghost colleges” or “cash-for-quals” businesses, accused of issuing qualifications without delivering genuine training or assessment, often in high-risk fields such as aged care, childcare, construction, and disability support.
Significant providers targeted by ASQA include
DSA Ventures (which operated as the Australian Academy of Elite Education),
Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (trading as Captain Cook College).
Luvium Pty Ltd (Australia Education & Career College)
IIET (trading as EDUVET)
Gills College (Elite College Australia, Sterling Business College)
Productivity Partners Pty Ltd (Captain Cook College)
Nextgen Tech Institute (Qualify Now Pty Ltd, Australian Learning Academy)
Kingsway Vocational Training Pty Ltd (very recent)
The regulator currently maintains a pipeline of over 200 major compliance cases under active review, underlining that enforcement activities across the VET landscape are ongoing and expanding.
Both students and employers are being cautioned to remain vigilant for potentially unscrupulous training providers. Warning signs include offers of qualifications with minimal or no required classes, shortcut assessment practices, and unusually rapid certificate issuance--all potential indicators of non-genuine operation.
A central cause of the recent regulatory crackdown on Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) in Australia is the widespread incidence of non-genuine providers undermining the integrity of vocational education. Many deregistered RTOs operated as “ghost colleges” or “cash-for-quals” schemes, issuing certificates without providing real training, valid assessment, or student engagement. These colleges often target high-risk fields such as aged care, childcare, construction, and disability support, where inadequately trained graduates pose acute risks to community safety and service quality.
Fraudulent and non-genuine operations became rampant, with some RTOs awarding certificates to students who never attended classes or demonstrated competency, and in some cases, accepting payment without the capacity or intention to deliver proper training. This damaged not only student prospects but public trust in the value of Australian qualifications. A further systemic issue lay in the managers and trainers: key personnel frequently lacked the required qualifications, conducted no formal training themselves, or failed to disclose regulatory breaches and previous associations with failed or cancelled providers. Patterns of nondisclosure and misinformation were repeated in compliance investigations.
Additionally, loopholes in assessment processes, such as the overuse of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and unreasonably fast-tracked certificate offers, were exploited by some providers, bypassing robust assessment and quality standards. These practices sometimes involved collaboration with third-party RTOs that were themselves later found non-compliant. As of 2025, ASQA is pursuing more than 200 serious compliance cases, reflecting ongoing and expanding systemic challenges across the VET sector.
Employers, students, and industry are now urged to watch for warning signs—such as promises of qualifications with little learning involved, shortcut assessments, or rapid certification turnarounds—that may signal a provider is not operating genuinely. Collectively, these issues have driven ASQA’s heightened enforcement, aimed at safeguarding qualification validity and ensuring Australia’s VET sector continues to deliver trusted, quality training outcomes.
ASQA responds: Decision protects students and upholds national standards
ASQA publicly stated that its decision to reject certain training providers and cancel qualifications is intended to protect students and uphold national standards, emphasising the importance of maintaining confidence in the Australian vocational education and training (VET) system. According to official spokespersons, ASQA’s primary role is to ensure that all stakeholders, students, industry, government, and the broader community trust the integrity of the national qualifications issued by training providers. The agency welcomed recent Tribunal decisions that affirmed its regulatory actions, citing that these interventions were evidence-based, in the interests of students and the public, and essential for the protection of the VET sector’s reputation and standards.
ASQA also highlights the growing scrutiny it applies to individuals behind training organisations, extending beyond just assessing technical aspects of applications to focus on the overall suitability and probity of applicants. While these steps demonstrate a sharper regulatory approach, it is important to recognise that ASQA’s own processes have come under criticism for failing to act sooner. Observers have noted that the authority did not always identify early warning signs, patterns in provider behaviour, or emerging data signals in a timely manner, which enabled some non-genuine providers to operate and issue qualifications before enforcement action was eventually taken. Thus, while ASQA has ramped up its enforcement activities, its delayed response and lack of early intervention in some cases have contributed to the extent of the problem before decisive steps were finally taken.
A warning to future college founders
The Pendulum College decision sends a strong message to the VET sector: directors must demonstrate genuine competence, transparent governance, and unquestionable integrity before they are entrusted with delivering national qualifications.
With heightened compliance expectations, ASQA’s focus has moved beyond paperwork to probing the authenticity of credentials, business histories, and professional relationships of those seeking entry into the training market.
For new applicants, the case serves as a reminder that misstatements, omissions or questionable qualification pathways can derail an entire business proposal, regardless of intentions or promises to improve.
Below is a checklist for all high managerial agents, directors, and key decision-makers of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs). This checklist covers critical warning signs and compliance steps to address immediately, based on recent regulatory decisions, including the refusal of Pendulum College’s registration, so as to prevent risks to your organisation’s suitability and to uphold the integrity of the VET sector.
RTO High Managerial Agents Compliance & Suitability Checklist
Full Disclosure of All Past and Present Associations
Accurately declare every directorship, trainer role, or involvement with other RTOs or companies, even if the entities are now closed or not directly relevant to the current application.
Immediately rectify any omissions or inaccuracies before lodging applications or during regulatory reviews.
Substantiate All Qualifications and Experience
Ensure all key personnel, especially trainers and directors, possess formal, verifiable qualifications directly related to the courses you intend to offer.
Avoid sole reliance on Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL); have documentation showing genuine learning, assessment participation, and, if using RPL, ensure it was issued by an organisation that remains in full regulatory compliance.
Review Provider and Personal History for Red Flags
Check if previous employers, or organisations you have directed, have faced compliance action, registration cancellations, or had qualifications invalidated.
Disclose and explain any such histories; silence or omission signals a risk to regulatory bodies.
Transparency and Timeliness
Respond promptly and completely to all regulatory bodies' requests for information. Late or “updated later” disclosures are viewed as undermining confidence and may lead to refusal of registration.
Inform regulatory bodies if you discover any earlier oversights or incomplete disclosures during any phase of the process.
Fit and Proper Person Test
Assess every executive, director, and manager against ASQA’s fit and proper person requirements, including integrity, business competence, and regulatory history.
Rectify internal governance weaknesses, develop conflict of interest registers, and complete annual checks for probity and financial integrity.
Evidence of Genuine Operations
Demonstrate through records, staffing, facilities, and communication channels that your RTO genuinely intends to deliver training, not just issue certificates.
Avoid any appearance of a “ghost college”, have validated trainers, detailed timetables, and documented plans to deliver every course.
Rigorous Documentation and Audit Trails
Keep detailed records of all applications, submissions, communications, trainer CVs, assessment tools, and training materials.
Prepare proactively for random audits by establishing and rehearsing compliance protocols.
Monitor for Early Warning Signs
Assign responsibility to detect and act on any anomalies in student progression, unusually fast qualifications, shortcut assessments, or minimal class delivery.
Watch for regulatory shifts and emerging patterns (e.g., new ASQA warnings, media reports, sudden peer closures).
Embed a Culture of Integrity
Train all staff and leadership on the importance of transparency, disclosure, and ethical conduct; the organisation’s reputation depends as much on trust as on qualifications.
Encourage immediate reporting of compliance concerns or errors—proactive self-reporting is viewed favourably by ASQA.
Failure to adhere to these markers risks not just a failed application, but permanent exclusion from the regulated training market. ASQA’s decision-making now centres as much on integrity and transparency as on technical course delivery, meaning every RTO director must instil these principles throughout the organisation as a matter of urgent priority.
This article was written by Sukh Sandhu from CAQA, drawing on recent regulatory developments to support integrity and quality in the VET sector. For RTOs, higher education providers, or other organisations seeking robust due diligence, internal audits, or ISO-aligned compliance reviews, it is strongly recommended to approach the dedicated ISO auditors and sector specialists at CAQA. Their team delivers tailored support and best-practice advisory services to help providers remain ahead of compliance expectations and foster a genuine culture of quality and transparency.
Disclaimer: The information presented above is provided for general awareness and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for tailored professional counsel. For advice or decisions regarding your specific compliance circumstances, consult a qualified legal or regulatory expert familiar with the Australian VET and higher education landscape.
