Maxine Elizabeth Galpin, trading as Australian Online Racing Accreditation or A.O.R.A. and Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills and Quality Authority
[2025] ARTA 685
•24 April 2025
Maxine Elizabeth Galpin, trading as Australian Online Racing Accreditation or A.O.R.A. and Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills and Quality Authority [2025] ARTA 685 (24 April 2025)
Applicant:Maxine Elizabeth Galpin, trading as Australian Online Racing Accreditation or A.O.R.A.
Respondent: Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills and Quality Authority
Tribunal Number: 2019/0521
Tribunal:Senior Member K Parker
Place:Melbourne
Date:24 April 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.
...............[SGD].........................................................
Senior Member K Parker
Catchwords
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING – cancellation of registered vocational education and training organisation – Certificate IV and Diploma of Racing (Racehorse Trainer) – online course delivery – whether the conditions of registration under s 22 and s 22A of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) are met – alleged non-compliance with certain clauses of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (Cth) – Decision Under Review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth)
Cases
Galpin v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills Quality Authority [2023] FCA 223
Maxine Elizabeth Galpin, trading as Australian Online Racing Accreditation or A.O.R.A. and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2021] AATA 309Legislative Instruments
Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (Cth) (as amended and in force on 1 March 2024)Other
ASQA Operational Guidelines entitled “Users’ Guide to the Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015”, Version 2.3/March 2024
Users’ guide to the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015Companion Volume Implementation Guide – RGR Racing and Breeding Training Package Version 4.1, issued by Skills Impact Ltd in February 2022
Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) issued in January 2013 - align="center">Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
Maxine Elizabeth Galpin was previously a horse trainer in the horse racing industry. Ms Galpin established a training organisation, owned by her personally, trading under the names “Australian Online Racing Accreditation” and/or “A.O.R.A.”.
Ms Galpin was previously registered under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (‘NVR Act’) as a registered training organisation (‘RTO’) to deliver vocational education and training (‘VET’) courses in Racing (Racehorse Trainer).
On 15 January 2019, Ms Galpin’s registration as an RTO was cancelled by a delegate of the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills and Quality Authority (‘ASQA’), with effect from 19 January 2019 (‘Decision Under Review’). Ms Galpin would like her registration as an RTO restored. Ms Galpin requests that the Tribunal set aside the Decision Under Review.
Ms Galpin would have had two qualifications within its scope of registration (had her registration not been cancelled), namely:
(a)RGR40118 - Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) (‘RGR40118 Certificate IV Course’); and
(b)RGR50118 - Diploma of Racing (Racehorse Trainer) (‘RGR50118 Diploma Course’).
The Tribunal will refer to the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course and the RGR50118 Diploma Course collectively in this Statement of Reasons as the ‘RGR Courses’.
Ms Galpin sought review of the Decision Under Review by the then General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’).
Ms Galpin was self-represented in the original AAT review proceeding. The AAT affirmed the Decision Under Review on 25 February 2021. Subsequently, Ms Galpin briefed King’s Counsel and Junior Counsel and appealed to the Federal Court of Australia on seven grounds.
On 17 March 2023, Wheelahan J of the Federal Court allowed the appeal. While his Honour was not persuaded to allow Ms Galpin’s appeal in respect of her first five grounds of appeal relating to the AAT’s various findings of non-compliance by Ms Galpin with the NVR Act and the Standards, his Honour allowed the appeal on the sixth and seventh grounds of appeal. In short, those two grounds related to a question about the interpretation of the wording of Clause 5.1 of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (Cth) (‘Standards’), in respect of the scope of Clause 5.1. Wheelahan J held that the conclusion by the AAT that Ms Galpin’s RTO was non-compliant with clause 5.1 was outside of the “zone” of permissible factual decision-making and constituted an error of law, based on his Honour’s interpretation of the wording of Clause 5.1. This matter was remitted to the AAT.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘this Tribunal’) following the abolition of the AAT. Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by this Tribunal. Anything done in relation to this proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by this Tribunal. Neither party disputed that this Tribunal has authority to deal with the present application.
ASQA contends that the decision to cancel Ms Galpin’s registration as an RTO should be affirmed because she does not meet the condition of registration under s 22 of the NVR Act, nor does she meet the further condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act. ASQA contends, correctly, that Ms Galpin is required to meet each of those conditions to be registered as an RTO to deliver the RGR Courses.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.
ISSUES
Under the NVR Act, the decision-maker may cancel the registration of an RTO, “in any circumstances” that it “considers it appropriate to do so”.[1] In effect, the overarching issue arising in this matter is whether the Tribunal, upon review, is satisfied that Ms Galpin’s registration as an RTO should remain cancelled.
[1] Subsection 39(1) of the NVR Act.
When making this decision, broadly speaking, the Tribunal will consider;
(a)whether Ms Galpin meets the condition of registration under s 22 the NVR Act, which will require a consideration as to whether Ms Galpin complies with the Standards; and
(b)whether Ms Galpin meets the requirements under s 22A being that she can demonstrate that she has “a commitment, and the capability, to deliver quality” VET.
ASQA contends that despite numerous opportunities to do so, Ms Galpin has not adduced rectification evidence to allow the Tribunal to be satisfied that she has significantly narrowed or completely extinguished the extent of the various non-compliances with the Standards identified by ASQA, and that she has met the conditions of registration under the NVR Act.
The Standards comprise a set of eight different standards comprising a set of requirements that an organisation must meet in order to be an RTO.[2] Under each Standard there is a set of clauses. To comply with each Standard, an organisation must meet each of the clauses.[3] In this application, ASQA has alleged that Ms Galpin does not comply with an extensive number of the clauses within a number of the Standards. Potentially, the breadth of the issues in this application is extensive, based on the most recent evidence review report issued by ASQA in respect of Ms Galpin’s organisation.
[2] Refer Standards, Part 1, “Purpose”, paragraph [1].
[3] Refer Standards, Part 1, “Structure”, second paragraph.
During the hearing process, the Tribunal indicated to ASQA that it would be assisted by receiving an indication as to the degree of seriousness it attributed to each of the numerous alleged areas of non-compliance. In accordance with the Tribunal’s directions, on 13 December 2024 (between the second and last day of the hearing of this matter), ASQA lodged a submission asserting that there are:
(a)“very serious” non-compliances by Ms Galpin with clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 of the Standards, and the conditions of registration under s 22 and s 22A of the NVR Act;
(b)“serious” non-compliances by Ms Galpin with clauses 1.3, 1.13 and 1.16 of the Standards;
(c)“medium” non-compliance: clauses 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 of the Standards; and
(d)“medium to low” non-compliance: clause 3.1 of the Standards.
The Tribunal will commence it consideration in this matter by examining the alleged “very serious” non-compliances with clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 of the Standard, relevant to whether Ms Galpin meets the condition of registration under s 22 of the NVR Act. Separately, the Tribunal will also consider whether Ms Galpin has met the condition under s 22A of the NVR Act.
LEGISLATIVE REGIME
Section 155 of the NVR Act establishes a framework for the national regulation of VET by ASQA.
The objects of the NVR Act are set out in s 2A and include the following:
(a)to provide for national consistency in the regulation of VET; and
(b)to regulate VET using:
(i)a standards-based quality framework; and
(ii)risk assessments, where appropriate;
(c)to protect and enhance:
(i)quality, flexibility, and innovation in VET; and
(ii)Australia’s reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and
(d)to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population; and
(e)to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and
(f)to facilitate access and accurate information relating to the quality of VET.
The “standards-based quality framework” referred to in paragraph [19(b)] above, consists of instruments made by the Ministerial Council, the Minister, or the National VET Regulator.[4]
[4] Note 1 to s 2A of the NVR Act.
Subdivision B of the NVR Act (comprising s 21 to s 30 inclusive) sets out various conditions of registration.
Section 21 of the NVR Act provides that an NVR registered training organisation must comply with:
(a)the conditions set out in s 22 to s 28 of the NVR Act; and
(b)comply with any conditions imposed on the organisation’s registration under subsection 29(1) of the NVR Act.
The notation to s 21 provides that a failure to comply with the condition of registration is a contravention of a civil penalty provision and refers to s 111 of the NVR Act.
The first mandatory condition of registration is set out in s 22 of the NVR Act and is headed “Condition-compliance with the VET Quality Framework”. Section 22 provides as follows that an NVR registered training organisation must comply with the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations, Quality Standards, Australian Quality Framework (‘AQF’) and Data Provision Requirements (‘DPR’).
The Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations are defined in s 3 of the NVR Act as having the meaning given to this term by s 185 of the NVR Act. Subsection 185(2) provides that for the purposes of the NVR Act, the Standards for NVR Registered Training Organisations mean the standards under subsection 185(1) of the NVR Act. Subsection 185(1) provides that the Minister, by legislative instrument, may make standards for NVR registered training organisation, as agreed by Ministerial Council. The Minister has issued such standards. The standards currently in force are the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (Cth) being the ‘Standards’ referred to above in paragraph [8].
Section 22A of the NVR Act provides that an NVR registered training organisation “must demonstrate a commitment, and the capability, to deliver quality vocational education and training”.
The provisions in Division 3 of the NVR Act are directed at ensuring compliance with the VET Quality Framework, which is defined in s 3 of the NVR Act to mean the following: the Standards, Quality Standards, AQF, Fit and Proper Person requirements, Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements and Data Provision Requirements. Section 35 provides for ASQA to conduct compliance audits, at any time. Section 35A empowers ASQA to issue directions to an RTO to rectify a breach of a condition of the organisation’s registration where ASQA is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so. Subsection 35A(3) provides that to avoid doubt, ASQA may take action, or cause action to be taken, under Part 6 of the NVR Act (which deals with enforcement) in addition to, or instead of, giving a direction under s 35A.
A number of “administrative sanctions” are set out in Subdivision B of the NVR Act and as relevant to this proceeding, under s 36, they include suspending the RTO’s registration under s 38 of the NVR Act or cancelling the RTO’s registration under s 39.
This application involves the cancellation of Mr Galpin’s registration as an RTO under s 39 of the NVR Act. Subsection 39(1) provides that ASQA may, by notice in writing, cancel an NVR registered training organisation’s registration “in any circumstances that the Regulator considers it appropriate to do so”. ASQA’s discretion is broad, but it must be exercised by ASQA (and the Tribunal upon review), reasonably.
Part 1 of the Standards provides that the Standards should be read in conjunction with the Standards for Training Packages, Standards for VET Accredited Courses and Standards for VET Regulators.
The “Purpose” of the Standards is described as being:
(a)to set out the requirements that an organisation must meet in order to be an RTO;
(b)to ensure that training products delivered by the RTOs meet the requirements of training packages or VET accredited courses, and have integrity for employment and further study; and
(c)to ensure RTOs operate ethically with due consideration of learners’ and enterprises’ needs.
Part 1 explains the structure of the Standards. The Standards consist of eight Standards and under each Standard is a set of clauses of the Standard. It also makes the following requirement clear (emphasis added):
To comply with a Standard, the RTO must meet each of the Clauses. A person applying to register as a new RTO must demonstrate the capacity to meet these Standards for all of the person’s intended scope of registration.
For each Standard a context statement is also included. The context does not form part of the Standard itself, and has been included to provide background information to help readers understand the Standard.
The Standards and Clauses are collectively referred to as Standards.
Part 2 of the Standards deals with “Training and assessment” and contains Standard 1 and Standard 2.
Standard 1 – clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8
Standard 1 is reproduced below:
The RTO’s training and assessment strategies and practices are responsive to industry and learner needs and meet the requirements of training packages and VET accredited courses.
For an RTO to be compliant with Standard 1, it must meet each of the 27 clauses of this standard, comprising clause 1.1 to 1.27.
In relation to Ms Galpin’s RTO, ASQA takes issue with clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8. These clauses are set out below:
1.1.The RTO’s training and assessment strategies and practices, including the amount of training they provide, are consistent with the requirements of training packages and VET accredited courses and enable each learner to meet the requirements for each unit of competency or module in which they are enrolled.
1.2.For the purposes of Clause 1.1, the RTO determines the amount of training they provide to each learner with regard to:
a) the existing skills, knowledge and the experience of the learner;
b) the mode of delivery; and
c) where a full qualification is not being delivered, the number of units and/or modules being delivered as a proportion of the full qualification.
…
Assessment
1.8. The RTO implements an assessment system that ensures that assessment (including recognition of prior learning):
a) complies with the assessment requirements of the relevant training package or VET accredited course; and
b) is conducted in accordance with the Principles of Assessment contained in Table 1.8‑1 and the Rules of Evidence contained in Table 1.8‑2.
Table 1.8‑1: Principles of Assessment
Fairness
The individual learner’s needs are considered in the assessment process.
Where appropriate, reasonable adjustments are applied by the RTO to take into account the individual learner’s needs.
The RTO informs the learner about the assessment process, and provides the learner with the opportunity to challenge the result of the assessment and be reassessed if necessary.
Flexibility
Assessment is flexible to the individual learner by:
· reflecting the learner’s needs;
· assessing competencies held by the learner no matter how or where they have been acquired; and
· drawing from a range of assessment methods and using those that are appropriate to the context, the unit of competency and associated assessment requirements, and the individual.
Validity
Any assessment decision of the RTO is justified, based on the evidence of performance of the individual learner.
Validity requires:
· assessment against the unit/s of competency and the associated assessment requirements covers the broad range of skills and knowledge that are essential to competent performance;
· assessment of knowledge and skills is integrated with their practical application;
· assessment to be based on evidence that demonstrates that a learner could demonstrate these skills and knowledge in other similar situations; and
· judgement of competence is based on evidence of learner performance that is aligned to the unit/s of competency and associated assessment requirements.
Reliability
Evidence presented for assessment is consistently interpreted and assessment results are comparable irrespective of the assessor conducting the assessment.
Table 1.8‑2: Rules of Evidence
Validity
The assessor is assured that the learner has the skills, knowledge and attributes as described in the module or unit of competency and associated assessment requirements.
Sufficiency
The assessor is assured that the quality, quantity and relevance of the assessment evidence enables a judgement to be made of a learner’s competency.
Authenticity
The assessor is assured that the evidence presented for assessment is the learner’s own work.
Currency
The assessor is assured that the assessment evidence demonstrates current competency. This requires the assessment evidence to be from the present or the very recent past.
ASQA’s User Guide
ASQA has issued guidance for RTOs, or prospective RTOs, about the requirements of RTOs under the NVR Act and the Standards on its website and in a publication entitled “Users’ guide to the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015” (‘ASQA’s Users’ Guide’).[5] The Tribunal notes that the ASQA’s User Guide, under the heading “Purpose”, states as follow:[6]
This guide provides an explanation of the Standards and guidance on meeting the Standards. RTO staff and management should use the guide to obtain a clearer understanding of the Standards and the obligations of an RTO. They can use that knowledge to structure operations and gather and retain evidence of compliant practices, systems and processes. The Standards describe what outcomes an RTO must achieve, not how they must be achieved.
This guide is not part of the Standards and has no legal authority. The guide does not prescribe how an RTO should be managed or what evidence must be retained to demonstrate compliance. RTOs are best placed to decide the most suitable way for their organisation to be structured and managed. As long as an RTO can present evidence that it complies with the Standards, there is no ‘right way’ for an RTO to conduct its operations.
The guide should not be considered as any form of checklist or to contain any prescriptive information.
EVIDENCE, SUBSMISSIONS AND HEARING
[5] Users’ guide to the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015
[6] ASQA’s Users’ Guide, page 6.
Evidence
On 18 October 2023, Ms Galpin lodged her hearing tender bundle which contained new rectification evidence prepared by external contractors and which had not been considered by ASQA previously (‘Ms Galpin’s First HTB’).[7]
[7] Exhibit A1. These documents have been received into evidence in this proceeding.
On 15 November 2023, ASQA lodged its position paper (‘ASQA’s Position Paper’) identifying deficiencies in Ms Galpin’s rectification evidence in relation to demonstrating that Ms Galpin’s RTO had not met the requirements under clauses 1.8, 1.13 and 1.16 of the Standards.
A case management directions hearing before the AAT took place on 22 November 2023. ASQA informed the Tribunal that it had not yet had an opportunity to review the new voluminous rectification evidence lodged by Ms Galpin in its entirety. The AAT provided an opportunity over the following month, for ASQA to review the new rectification evidence and directed that ASQA prepare a detailed submission setting out the areas of concern for ASQA, the clauses of the Standards with which it considers Ms Galpin’s RTO remains non-compliant and the reasons why, and for Ms Galpin to lodge any additional evidence to ASQA for further review. The AAT provided Ms Galpin with one month to review ASQA’s updated submissions, following which she was to decide whether she was willing to accept ASQA’s proposal to attend a comprehensive “roundtable” discussion directly with ASQA, to explore whether the matter could be resolved.
The AAT directed that Ms Galpin advise the AAT and ASQA by 22 January 2024 of her decision about whether she had agreed to participate in the proposed “roundtable” discussion. The AAT foreshadowed that if the above process did not result in a resolution of this matter, it would be scheduled for a substantive hearing and that the Tribunal will proceed to make a decision.
On 12 January 2024, ASQA lodged with the Tribunal a document entitled “AAT Evidence Review – Maxine Elizabeth Galpin” (‘First Evidence Review Report’) containing a comprehensive review of the rectification evidence put forward by Ms Galpin in Ms Galpin’s First HTB.[8] The Tribunal did not receive any update from Ms Galpin’s lawyers by 22 January 2024 as per the Tribunal’s direction. Consequently, the proceeding stalled. The presiding member listed this matter for a further directions hearing to determine the appropriate next steps to progress the matter.
[8] Exhibit R1. This document has been received into evidence in this proceeding.
At a directions hearing on 30 August 2024, each party provided an update to the Tribunal as follows:
(a)ASQA reported that it had lodged its First Evidence Review Report;
(a)Ms Galpin told the Tribunal that she had engaged three different contractors who had assisted her to address ASQA’s concerns, including:
(i)Career Calling International Pty Ltd (‘CCI’), who had prepared the materials contained in Ms Galpin’s First HTB;
(ii)RTO Services, who she said had provided further materials in respect of three units. Ms Galpin gave evidence that she had modified these materials and they were also lodged with the Tribunal; and
(iii)James Tenant, who she said had provided an online program to Ms Galpin relating to numeracy and literacy skills which she could use to deliver the RGR Courses;
(b)Ms Meg Schauer, in-house lawyer at ASQA with carriage of this matter, informed the Tribunal that the “roundtable” discussion had taken place between the parties in mid-April 2024. This conference was attended by Ms Schauer, Ms Robyn Grant an ASQA Review Officer, and Ms Galpin. Ms Galpin was legally represented at this informal conference by her former solicitor, Ash Melnacis, and a barrister, Min Gao;
(c)Ms Schauer reported that it was agreed at this conference that Ms Galpin would provide additional materials to ASQA, who would review those materials, provide a response and report back to the Tribunal. Ms Schauer explained that ASQA was not clear as to the dates that Ms Galpin’s lawyer was supposed to revert to Ms Schauer. Ms Schauer explained that she did not hear back from Ms Galpin’s lawyer; and
(d)on 15 July 2024, Ms Galpin claimed to have lodged a set of further materials with the Tribunal which were generic training and assessment materials for the BSBCRT511 unit entitled “Develop critical thinking in others”. Ms Schauer told the Tribunal that ASQA had not received this further set of documents from Ms Galpin. It was subsequently identified there was an error in the email address that was used by Ms Galpin when attempting to send those materials to Ms Schauer which explained why they did not reach her.
On 3 July 2024, Ms Galpin’s lawyer ceased to act for Ms Galpin in this matter. Thereafter, Ms Galpin was self-represented.
Over various dates in August and September 2024, Ms Galpin continued to provide new rectification evidence to ASQA.
On about 11 October 2024, ASQA lodged a further evidence review report (‘Second Evidence Review Report’).[9] ASQA reported that it still did not consider that Ms Galpin’s actions had addressed all areas of alleged non-compliance.
[9] Exhibit R2 and Transcript, P-154. This document has been received into evidence in this proceeding.
Consequently, the AAT made procedural directions for the lodgement of updated case materials sought to be relied upon by both parties and listed this matter for a substantive hearing which took place in December 2024.
On 22 November 2024, Ms Galpin lodged a document entitled “Second Tender Bundle Index” which had embedded in it over 50 hyperlinks to additional material that Ms Galpin intended to rely upon on in this application. Some of those hyperlinks did not work and would not allow access by the reader to the document described in its label. Subsequently, ASQA helpfully assisted Ms Galpin to arrange to download and collate the documents listed in this index and they were eventually lodged with the Tribunal as a second hearing tender bundle (‘Ms Galpin’s Second HTB’).[10]
[10] The documents in Ms Galpin’s Second HTB have been received into evidence in this proceeding.
On 4 December 2024, ASQA lodged a joint hearing tender bundle totalling 837 pages.[11]
[11] These documents have been received into evidence in this proceeding. Transcript, P-157.
On 5 December 2024, an indexed and paginated version of joint hearing tender bundle was lodged by ASQA with the Tribunal (‘Joint HTB’).
Hearing
The first and second days of the substantive hearing took place on 5 and 6 December 2024. Ms Galpin was self-represented at the substantive hearing. The ASQA was represented by an in-house lawyer at ASQA and by Ms S. Dhanji of counsel.
On the second day of the hearing, Ms Galpin raised a concern about the timeliness of lodgement by ASQA of the Joint HTB on 4 December 2024. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to state the reason why she was raising this concern and whether she was seeking an adjournment of the substantive hearing. At first, Ms Galpin did not seek an adjournment and remarked that an adjournment would not be in her best interests. She said she would like to see the end of the matter.[12] A short time later, Ms Galpin indicated that she did, in fact, wish to apply for an adjournment.[13]
[12] Transcript, P-159.
[13] Ibid, P-160.
In considering Ms Galpin’s adjournment application, the Tribunal addressed the chronology of the lodgement of the parties’ materials with the Tribunal prior to the commencement of the substantive hearing. Ms Galpin stated her concern related to the large volume of documents lodged by ASQA on 4 December 2024. However, Ms Dhanji pointed out that “well over 95 per cent” of the contents of Joint HTB were, in fact, Ms Galpin’s documents which she had hyperlinked, instead of attaching, to the index she had provided to the Tribunal, and ASQA, on 22 November 2024 as referred to above. ASQA had done so as a gesture of being helpful to the Tribunal, and to Ms Galpin (who had not complied with the Tribunal’s direction as to how the evidence in this matter was to be put before the Tribunal).
Ms Dhanji also pointed out that the only documents in the Joint HTB lodged on 4 December 2024 that ASQA sought to rely upon were documents numbered 51 to 54 comprising the Affidavit of Ian William Penna sworn 21 February 2019 and 12 February 2020 lodged previously in the AAT and two earlier Evidence Review Reports which included the Second Evidence Review Report dated 10 October 2024 provided to Ms Galpin on or shortly after that date. In other words, there were no new documents being provided to Ms Galpin which had not be provided to her before the hearing in December 2024.
The chronology outlined by ASQA was accurate. On that basis, the Tribunal was satisfied that there was no reason to grant Ms Galpin’s adjournment request.[14] Instead, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing as there were no new documents provided to Ms Galpin on 4 December 2024 which could have taken her by surprise. After this exchange, Ms Galpin then stated further that she was “happy to proceed”.[15]
[14] Transcript, P-164.
[15] Ibid.
On 11 December 2024, Ms Galpin lodged a third individual hearing tender bundle containing 120 new documents, totalling 1,671 pages (‘Ms Galpin’s Third HTB’).
ASQA objected to some of the documents in Ms Galpin’s Third HTB being received into evidence in this proceeding. On 15 December 2024, ASQA lodged a document containing a table setting out its bases for its objections to some of the 120 new documents contained in Ms Galpin’s Third HTB (‘ASQA’s Objections’).
On 11 December 2024, ASQA lodged a document entitled “Aide Memoire Prepared by Respondent – Australian Racing Board and Racing Australia” (‘ASQA’s Aide Memoire’).[16]
[16] This document has been received into evidence in this proceeding.
On 16 December 2024, the third (and final) day of the substantive hearing took place. Ms Galpin tendered a number of further documents which were accepted into evidence (Exhibits A5 to A13).
The substantive hearing was concluded on 16 December 2024, and the Tribunal made a ruling in respect of each of ASQA’s Objections in respect of some of the documents contained in Ms Galpin’s Third HTB being received into evidence. The Tribunal accepted some but not all of these document into evidence in this proceeding, as referred to in detail in the transcript of the hearing on 16 December 2024. A significant number of the documents sought to be tendered by Ms Galpin were irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding, duplicates, or were documents which had already been produced to the Tribunal.
At the substantive hearing of this matter, Ms Galpin did not call any other lay or expert witnesses in support of her application. Instead, she relied upon her own evidence and the documentary evidence which had been lodged with the Tribunal. Ms Galpin gave oral evidence in support of her application and was cross-examined at length. ASQA called one witness being Ms Grant, who had previously undertaken the review of Ms Galpin’s rectification evidence. The transcript of the original proceeding before the AAT was received into evidence in this proceeding.[17]
[17] Exhibit R5.
On 10 March 2025, Ms Galpin sought to lodge in this proceeding, a copy of legal submissions relating to the arbitration on foot between her with CCI. The Tribunal decided it was not appropriate to re-open this proceeding or to receive this arbitration document relating to a legal proceeding about Ms Galpin and CCI, into evidence in this proceeding. This document does not constitute evidence of the resolution of the contractual dispute between Mr Galpin and CCI and on that basis, does not shed any light on the issues in this proceeding.
Before this decision was handed down, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and sought clarification from Ms Galpin in relation to her qualifications as the evidence which had been lodged with the Tribunal were incomplete. In response Ms Galpin lodged a further hearing tender bundle comprising 93 pages. Save for the academic transcripts, qualification certificates issued by educational institutions and evidence of her breeding licence, being the documents specifically requested by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not accepted the remaining documents in this late tender bundle by Ms Galpin into evidence in this proceeding. The matter was reserved when those documents were received by Ms Galpin and it is not appropriate to receive them into evidence. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Galpin has had numerous and ample opportunities to lodge new rectification evidence before the hearing in December 2024 was concluded.
Submissions
At the directions hearing on 3 August 2023, Ms Galpin was invited to lodge submissions in support of her application when she lodged Ms Galpin’s First HTB, but she did not do so.
On 15 November 2023, as mentioned above, ASQA lodged ASQA’s Position Paper.
On 3 December 2024, ASQA forwarded to the Tribunal an email which had been sent by Ms Galpin to ASQA on 22 January 2024, containing submissions of facts, issues and contentions which had been prepared by Ms Galpin (‘Ms Galpin’s SFIC’).
On 22 November 2024, ASQA lodged a document entitled “Respondent’s Outline of Submissions” totalling 17 pages (‘ASQA’s Outline of Submissions’). ASQA stated that it continued to rely, also, on its original statement of facts, issues, and contentions lodged on 13 February 2020 (‘ASQA’s SFIC’). In ASQA’s Outline of Submissions, ASQA contended that the cancellation of Ms Galpin’s registration was appropriate because of her historic and ongoing non-compliances with the Standards and also due to her inability to demonstrate a commitment, and the capability, to deliver quality VET as required by s 22A of the NVR Act.[18]
[18] ASQA’s Outline of Submissions, paragraph [44] and [45].
On 4 December 2024, Ms Galpin lodged a document entitled “Brief Summary” which contained further submissions of fact, issues, and contentions (‘Ms Galpin’s Further SFIC’).
As mentioned above, the Tribunal requested that ASQA make further written submissions to clarify the priority it would attribute to the numerous alleged non-compliances by Ms Galpin. On 13 December 2024, Ms Dhanji, on behalf of ASQA, complied with this direction by lodging a document entitled “Respondent’s Submissions” totalling 13 pages (‘ASQA’s Further Submissions’).
CONSIDERATION
Broad contentions by the parties
In the Second Evidence Review Report, ASQA stated that cancellation of Ms Galpin’s registration as an RTO would continue to be appropriate for the following stated reasons:[19]
(a)ASQA considers there have been long-standing findings of non-compliance by Ms Galpin. ASQA stated that over the course of Ms Galpin’s registration as an RTO, and through the appeals process, Ms Galpin has had multiple opportunities to provide evidence of rectification of non-compliance and despite this, she remains critically non-compliant. ASQA stated that it has low confidence in Ms Galpin’s ability or capacity to become compliant and to remain so;
(b)ASQA considers that Ms Galpin’s failure to return to compliance over such a long period of time indicates that she is not capable of, nor willing to, take the steps necessary to understand and meet her obligations under the Standards for RTOs. ASQA highlights that it is notable that Ms Galpin’s non-compliance remains, despite her having engaged external compliance consultants; and
(c)Ms Galpin’s training and assessment documentation is “generally poor quality and demonstrates numerous errors and deficiencies”. ASQA contends that this points to serious failings in her self-assurance systems and processes. As such, ASQA contends that even if Ms Galpin “returned to basic compliance”, there is “low confidence that her self-assurance measures would sufficiently identify and respond to risk and systemic issues” within her organisation. As such, ASQA considers that Ms Galpin would be unlikely to remain compliant in the longer term.
[19] Joint HTB, page 821.
During oral closing submissions, Ms Galpin contended that she has made “an enormous attempt over the last decade” to get the units of the training package “up”. Ms Galpin said she had spent “an enormous amount” of her own funds and had engaged a lot of people to help her. Ms Galpin said she had continued, even “after being knocked down and not being able to see the reasoning in that cancellation to go through the court structure that was offered” to her. Ms Galpin said she did that, to “have some sort of reasonable and clear direction as to why”.
Ms Galpin said the communications between ASQA and herself over those years “leave a lot wanting”. Ms Galpin said for one thing, there was no one for her to speak to. She said she had tried to call Ms Schauer in July, who had told her that all the documents from Ms Galpin’s lawyer had not been received. Ms Galpin said her lawyer (at that time) had assured her that the documents had been sent to ASQA. Ms Galpin acknowledged that this had “created a mess” but she said she would not apologise for this, because she said she had made every attempt available to her.
Ms Galpin submitted to the Tribunal that at the same time of dealing with this Tribunal proceeding, she has been involved in, and has had to deal with, a Magistrates’ Court proceeding and an arbitration in relation to the contractors (CCI) who had developed the training packages for her.
Ms Galpin was critical about the confusion that had arisen about the units being superseded and suggested that there was conflicting information from different representatives at ASQA about this. Ms Galpin considers that she has done “an enormous job to get the packages up” and that she “did get them up in 2016”. Ms Galpin said there were over 37 documents added to what was then an accepted course and that she has not received a complaint from any student (who she described as being “industry-based people”). When asked by the Tribunal, Ms Galpin confirmed that she has only ever trained two students previously.
Ms Galpin highlighted that those students could have applied for recognition of prior learning (‘RPL’) assessments but Ms Galpin said she had refused to give it to them, because she said she wanted to see that they “could actually do the theory”. She said one of those students entered the country as a horse trainer. Ms Galpin said she required him to do a Certificate III, because this was a requirement for him to do a Certificate IV. She said, “he got the ground work and showed us that he could actually do those 22 units and he did. So I think it’s been an extraordinary journey…”
The Tribunal notes Ms Galpin’s preferred approach when it comes to RPL assessments, as set out above. However, all RTOs, whether they propose to offer RPL assessments or not, are required to meet the conditions of the registration mandated under the NVR Act.
Ms Galpin expressed her view that it was “almost an impossible task” to get “an RGR package up” and there was “just no support”. Ms Galpin said (emphasis added):
No matter what efforts, which I’m still here to do, and having engaged consultants – not just one, I’ve engaged a lot of different consultants, and they still don’t be able to give me the proper advice. I end up with conflicting advice. Now, I’m not arguing with everybody. I’m so tired from it all that my head’s busted, literally, because it’s not clear. It might be clear to ASQA who deal with it all the time, but it’s not clear to people that are trying to run RTOs. If it was, Sukh Sandu, CCI, you know, they’re either fully compliant or they’re not fully complaint.
We’ve got conflicting reports on both of them, and we’ve gone through their documents here in this tribunal which has shown you how clearly there are mistakes in those documents, yet we’ve got full compliance from ASQA in writing that they were compliant as long as we did the superseded documents. But then Robyn’s given evidence that no, no, no, we don’t need to do that, ‘What’s on the website’s current’. So it’s not clear. If you look at the implementation of the RGR racing and breeding package which is the latest release, it’s a very simple document. It doesn’t explain very much. It’s quite inadequate.
If I go to the RGR08 package, which is the most current big package, there is a bit more detail in there, and it’s quite an easy – I know it’s very large, but it actually accommodates you at the top of it with a guide to find things. So there might be 15 times that the RGR408 package is mentioned within that document, and I can just click through it and I can see what was mentioned, where it’s mentioned, and there’s not a lot mentioned, but it’s still dealing with the 40108 in that document. It hasn’t been upgraded to the next one, and like I said, there’s very little in the implementation of the (indistinct) release which is the implementation document.
And I understand and totally respect that there is a very distinct criteria that ASQA are looking for, but I don’t see that being implemented that well in my package by skills impact. So I’m at loss to where I really get the information that they’re looking for so that I can actually tick these boxes. It’s not that I don’t want to. I truly do.
At the end of the hearing, Ms Galpin said she “would not walk away feeling inadequate” but instead, she feels “there was a lack of support”. She claimed that it is not only her who was seeking it. Ms Galpin described ASQA as being “shameful” and “needing to take a good look at itself”. She said that there needed to be “more clear criteria for industry”. This assertion by Ms Galpin is at odds with the comprehensive documentary materials provided by ASQA in relation to the training packages for the RGR Courses, specifically, the Companion Guides referred to below.
Ms Galpin said that people in “her industry do not want to read that much” and they are “not all excited about this”. She said that she had made her “entire staff of 17 go to school, but going out through the industry, nobody does it”. Ms Galpin said, “they do not want to; they are not interested” and “the job does not rely upon it”. Ms Galpin said she was frustrated.
The Tribunal acknowledges Ms Galpin’s feelings of frustration and notes her assertions that others, including ASQA and the contractors she has engaged to assist her, in her view, are to blame for the challenges she has encountered in reaching a state of compliance with the conditions of registration under the NVR Act and the Standards. However, the Tribunal does not accept that blaming others for Ms Galpin’s non-compliances adequately explains why the Tribunal should overlook if Ms Galpin’s training and assessment resources are demonstrated as not being in a state of readiness to deliver quality VET courses. The legislation sets out a number of conditions of registration as an RTO. Registration under the NVR Act is conditional upon those conditions of registration being met during the period of registration of the RTO to deliver VET courses and/or units, rather than at some point in the future.
In paragraphs [17] and [18] of ASQA’s Position Paper, ASQA expressly states that the TASs provided by Ms Galpin for the RGR Courses referred to “superseded units of competency”[20] but otherwise, they were compliant. Ms Galpin sought to highlight this earlier finding by ASQA. However, that earlier finding by ASQA relates to TASs and RPL Kits[21] that she is no longer permitted to use (this is addressed in more detail below).[22] The Tribunal notes that things have moved on significantly since then. Ms Galpin’s only option is to use the replacement TASs and RPL kits, as referred to in detail below, because of the dispute that has arisen between her and CCI.
[20] At the hearing, Ms Grant corrected this statement and said there is no issue about Ms Galpin having developed TASs and RPL Kits for the three superseded units because they could, in fact, be legitimately delivered when delivering the RGR Courses, despite being superseded units. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Grant said Ms Galpin was advised of the correction in the meeting ASQA had with Ms Galpin in March 2024. Ms Dhanji highlighted that ASQA’s view about this also was corrected by ASQA in the Second Evidence Review.
[21] Transcript, P-357.
[22] The Tribunal also notes that ASQA’s Position Paper does not address the alleged non-compliance with subclauses 1.1 or 1.2 of the Standards. ASQA stated, in paragraph [14], that it considered clauses 1.8, 1.13 and 1.16 of the Standards to be central to an RTO being able to demonstrate it is able to begin operating and capable of providing ongoing high-quality vocational education.
Specific considerations
In conducting this review, the Tribunal must consider whether Ms Galpin has met:
(a)the condition of registration under s 22 of the NVR Act; and
(b)the condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act.
Condition of registration under s 22 of the NVR Act
Section 22 of the NVR Act imposes a mandatory requirement on RTOs being that that they must meet the Standards. This requirement is not optional nor is it enough for the RTO to aspire to meet those Standards at some point in the future. The Standards must be met at the time a training organisation is registered under the NVR Act to deliver VET courses to learners.
ASQA considers that there are “very serious non-compliances” by Ms Galpin with Clauses 1.1, 1.2 and 1.8 of the Standards. The Tribunal will now address these three Clauses.
Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards – training and assessment strategies and practices must be consistent with the requirements of the relevant training packages and the RTO is to determine the amount of training to be provided
At the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if she could explain the requirements of a training organisation arising under Clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of the Standards. Initially, Ms Galpin was unable to offer any explanation and cited as her reason, that she did not have a photographic memory.[23] Ms Galpin then suggested that Clause 1.2 was about “moving forward when something is superseded, it has 12 months”. This is incorrect and would appear to be a mistaken reference by Ms Galpin to Clause 1.26 of the Standards. Ms Galpin’s answers to these questions demonstrate that she does not have an adequate knowledge about the requirements of an RTO under Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards.
[23] Transcript, P-365 & P-366.
Clause 1.1 requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that Ms Galpin’s training and assessment strategies (‘TASs’) and practices, including the amount of training she is to provide, are consistent with the requirements of the training packages and VET accredited courses, and enable each learner to meet the requirements for each unit of competency or module in which they are enrolled.
Clause 1.2 guides the RTO, for the purpose of meeting its requirements under Clause 1.1, to determine the amount of training they provide to each learner with regard to:
(a)the existing skills, knowledge, and the experience of the learner;
(b)the mode of delivery; and
(c)where a full qualification is not being delivered, the number of units and/or modules being delivered as a proportion of the full qualification.
The Tribunal considers that to meet Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards, that Ms Galpin must be able to demonstrate, at the current time, that she has:
(a)adequate and finalised TASs for each of the RGR Courses; and
(b)adequate and finalised RPL Kits in respect of each of the units intended to be delivered by Ms Galpin when delivering the RGR Courses noting that Ms Galpin has represented to prospective learners that RPL is available.
It is also important that Ms Galpin demonstrates that those materials are presently consistent with the requirements of the relevant training packages on the national training registry (as issued on the training.gov.au website, as detailed below) and that they would enable each learner to meet the requirements for each unit of competency or module in which they are enrolled.
Training packages issued by training.gov.au
The “training packages” referred to in Clause 1.1 form part of Australia’s national training register and are publicly available on the Australian Government “training.gov.au” website. Training.gov.au describes itself as “a joint initiative of the Australian, state and territory governments”.
Training Package for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course
The current release of the RGR Racing and Breeding Training Package is Version 4.1 which was issued by training.gov.au on 25 February 2023. It includes the training package for the RGR40118 Certificate Course (that is, Release 3).
The “Qualification Description” in the training package for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course is set out below (emphasis added):
This qualification reflects the role of individuals licensed to operate a business that trains horses under racing industry regulated licensing criteria for the purpose of competing in industry-regulated events in the harness or thoroughbred racing codes.
It covers the care, maintenance and performance of racehorses and the tasks and duties associated with running a racing establishment, including managing staff, finances and equipment. Trainers are responsible for planning and organising their own work, leading others and carrying out often complex and non-routine tasks.
This qualification is required for industry licensing and registration in some states and territories. Refer to the relevant state or territory Principal Racing Authority for current requirements.
Competencies attained in the units packaged for this qualification will apply to the harness and thoroughbred codes of the industry. Consequently, when performance criteria are applied they will relate to the harness or thoroughbred code and a Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) must contain a statement as follows:
‘This qualification was achieved under the conditions operating in the [insert relevant racing code - harness OR thoroughbred] code of the racing industry.’
The training package sets out clear “Packaging Rules” for a learner to achieve this qualification, specifically, competency must be demonstrated by the learner in 16 units of competency, comprising seven core units and nine elective units.[24] There are 32 different electives units of which five units have their own prerequisite requirements being that the learner must have completed certain other units as prescribed in the training package.
[24] The core units are specified as being:
(a) BSBSMB407 “Manage a small team”;
(b) BSBWHS301 “Maintain workplace safety”;
(c) RGRCMN203 “Comply with racing industry ethics and integrity”;
(d) RGRCMN305 “Participate in racing protests and inquiries”;
(e) RGRPSH302 “Supervise handling of horses”;
(f) RGRPSH408 “Manage horse health and welfare”; and
(g) RGRPSH421 “Operate horse racing training business”.
Training Package for RGR50118 Diploma Course
The most current release of the training package issued by training.gov.au for the RGR50118 Diploma Course was released on 25 February 2022 (that is, Release 3). This training package forms part of the RGR Racing and Breeding Training Package Version 4.1.
The “Qualification Description” in the training package for the RGR Diploma Course is set out below (emphasis added):
This qualification reflects the role of individuals licensed to operate a business that trains horses commercially for multiple owners to compete industry-regulated events in the harness or thoroughbred racing codes. The trainer at this level generally manages a large training establishment with several staff members, often operating interstate and/or internationally, with extensive demands from owners, media and public.
The qualification covers high-level technical, planning and management skills required to manage a complex business as well as detailed knowledge of the rules relating to racing partnerships and syndication, and horse pedigree, conformation and animal physiology.
This qualification is required for industry licensing and registration in some states and territories.
Competencies attained in the units packaged for this qualification will apply to the harness and thoroughbred codes of the industry. Consequently, when performance criteria are applied they will relate to the harness or thoroughbred code and a Diploma in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) must contain a statement as follows:
‘This qualification was achieved under the conditions operating in the [insert relevant racing code - harness OR thoroughbred] code of the racing industry.’
The training package sets out clear “Packaging Rules” for a learner to achieve this qualification, specifically, competency must be demonstrated by the learner in 12 units of competency, comprising seven core units and five elective units.[25] There are 22 different electives units of which one unit has its own prerequisite requirement which is that the learner must have completed the unit ACMEQU205 “Apply knowledge of horse behaviour”.
Hyperlinks to Companion Guides – Companion User Guide: Safety in Equine Training & Companion RGR Implementation Guide
[25] The core units are specified as being:
(a) BSBSUS501 “Develop workplace policy and procedures for sustainability”;
(b) RGRCMN402 “Participate in media interviews for racing”;
(c) RGPSH422 “Promote and maintain business arrangements with racehorse owners”;
(d) RGRPSH501 “Plan and adapt training and conditioning programs for racehorses”;
(e) RGRPSH502 “Plan and implement education of horses for racing”;
(f) RGRPSH504 “Develop systems and records for horse racing business training operations”;
(g)RGRPSH505 “Select horses for racing”.
The training package for each of the RGR Courses contain hyperlinks to:
(a)an 80-page “User Guide: Safety in Equine Training – Companion Volume to support delivery of equine units of competency in … RGR Racing and Breeding Training Packages - Release 4.0”, issued by Skills Impact Ltd in February 2022 (‘Companion User Guide: Safety in Equine Training’). This Companion User Guide: Safety in Equine Training states that it is a companion volume that has been designed to assist assessors, trainers, RTOs, and enterprises to deliver equine training. It further states that it aims to provide detailed information on safety and risk management when interacting (that is, handling and riding) with horses; and
(b)a 108-page “Companion Volume Implementation Guide – RGR Racing and Breeding Training Package Version 4.1” issued by Skills Impact Ltd in February 2022 (‘Companion RGR Implementation Guide’). The Companion RGR Implementation Guide states that it is designed to assist assessors, trainers, RTOs, and enterprises to use the RGR Racing and Breeding Training Package.
The Companion RGR Implementation Guide includes detailed information or explanations about the following matters:
(a)what training packages are, and how they are developed;
(b)the qualifications, skill sets, and units of competency in the training package;
(c)mapping between previous and current versions of the qualifications and units of competency;
(d)unit and qualification coding;
(e)entry requirements for qualifications;
(f)key work, training, and racing industry regulatory/licensing requirements of the industry;
(g)legislative requirements; and
(h)occupational outcomes of qualifications.
Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)
The Australian Qualifications Framework (‘AQF’) is the national policy for regulated qualifications in Australian education and training.[26] The AQF is the agreed policy of Commonwealth, State and Territory ministers. The AQF was published by the former Australian Qualifications Framework Council (a council of the Ministers responsible for tertiary education, skills, and employment) and is now administered by the Department of Education in consultation with the states and territories.
[26] >
The NVR Act mandates that RTOs must comply with the AQF as a condition of registration. The AQF recognises RTOs as “authorised issuing organisations’’ able to issue AQF qualifications and statements of attainment to learners who have satisfied the relevant competency requirements. All “authorised issuing” organisations are required to comply with the requirements of the AQF.
The current (and second) version the AQF was issued in January 2013. It includes an “AQF specification” for different levels of qualifications which is stated in the AQF to “inform” the design and accreditation of qualifications. Relevant to this matter, the AQF includes:
(a)an “AQF specification for the Certificate IV”;[27] and
(b)an “AQF specification for the Diploma”.[28]
[27] AQF, pages 35-37.
[28] AQF, pages 38-40.
CAQA TASs and CAQA RPL Kits
Ms Galpin asserts that she has endeavoured to rectify ASQA’s concerns about the adequacy of her TASs and RPL Kits for the RGR Courses.
One week after the first case management directions hearing conducted by this Tribunal on 3 August 2003, Ms Galpin entered into a general service agreement with CCI, trading as “Compliance and Quality Assurance” (‘CAQA’)), on 10 August 2023 (‘CCI Agreement’).[29] The services to be provided by CCI under the CCI Agreement are stated as including: regulatory advice, assistance with regulatory outcome, compliance monitoring and reporting, advice on compliance and risk assessment which included a comprehensive review of Ms Galpin’s current policies, procedures and processes, and other relevant documents to identify potential risks associated with operations, compliance and regulatory obligations.[30]
[29] Ms Galpin’s First HTB, pages 1-15.
[30] Ibid, page 5.
At the hearing, Ms Galpin said she “worked with” CAQA to prepare documents for her RTO. Those documents included:
(a)a new TAS for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course (‘CAQA Certificate IV TAS’);[31]
[31] First lodged in October 2023 in Ms Galpin’s First HTB - refer pages 154-226.
(b)a new TAS for the RGR50118 Diploma Course (‘CAQA Diploma TAS);[32] and
[32] First lodged in October 2023 in Ms Galpin’s First HTB – refer pages 260-324.
(c)RPL kits for the following units:[33]
[33] First lodged in October 2023 in Ms Galpin’s First HTB – Document 18.
(i)BSBSMB403 Market the small business;
(ii)BSBSMB407 Manage a small team;
(iii)BSBSUS501 Develop workplace policy and procedures for sustainability;
(iv)BSBWHS301 Maintain workplace safety;
(v)BSMSUP280 Manage conflict at work;
(vi)RGRCMN203 Comply with racing ethics and integrity;
(vii)RGRCMN305 Participate in racing protests and inquiries;
(viii)RGRCMN402 Participate in media interviews for racing;
(ix)RGRPSH302 Supervise handling of horses;
(x)RGRPSH408 Manage horse health and welfare;
(xi)RGRPSH409 Determine nutritional requirements for horses;
(xii)RGRSH420 Participate in implementing racehorse exercise programs;
(xiii)RGRPSH421 Operate horse racing training business;
(xiv)REGPSH422 Promote and maintain business arrangements with racehorse owners;
(xv)RGRPSH501 Plan and adapt training and conditioning programs for racehorses;
(xvi)RGRPSH502 Plan and implement education of horses for racing;
(xvii)RGRPSH503 Trial and race horses;
(xviii)REGRPSH504 Develop systems and records for horse racing business training operations;
(xix)RGRPSH505 Select horses for racing.
The Tribunal will refer to the CAQA Certificate TAS and the CAQA Diploma TAS collectively as the ‘CAQA TASs’. The Tribunal will refer to the RPL kits for the units referred to above collectively as the ‘CAQA RPL Kits’.
Ms Galpin gave evidence at the hearing that subsequently a contractual dispute arose between herself and CCI. This dispute is now the subject of an arbitration process before the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Ms Galpin confirmed that CCI is claiming payment from her for outstanding fees. Ms Galpin indicated she had not paid those fees because she considers that CCI has not met its contractual obligations under the CCI Agreement.
In light of this development, the Tribunal questioned Ms Galpin about her understanding about whether, presently, she has the legal right to use the CAQA TASs and CAQA RPL Kits. In response, Ms Galpin tendered an exchange of emails between Ms Galpin and CCI in November 2023. These emails revealed the following:
(a)on 15 November 2023, the Chief Executive Officer of CCI asked Ms Galpin when CCI’s fees would be paid;
(b)Ms Galpin, in return, queried the basis upon which CCI had charged fees to her;
(c)CCI replied and referred to the agreed basis, as set out in the CCI Agreement, for the charging of its fees (that is, on an hourly rate). Further, CCI demanded payment from Ms Galpin by 22 November 2023 and foreshadowed that if payment was not received, it would take the decision to “discontinue” the agreement;
(d)Ms Galpin replied asserting that her request for information from CCI was reasonable. Ms Galpin stated that if CCI wished to terminate the CCI Agreement, this was CCI’s choice to do so;
(e)on 18 November 2023, CCI terminated the CCI Agreement with immediate effect;
(f)on 23 November 2023, CCI sent a further email to Ms Galpin confirming that the CCI Agreement was cancelled and to advise that “all resources provided under this agreement should be considered null and void”.[34]
[34] Exhibit A3.
The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin what she understood the reference to “null and void” in CCI’s email dated 23 November 2023, to mean, and specifically, whether it meant that CCI did not want her to use the materials produced under the CCI Agreement until she had been paid the outstanding fees. Mr Galpin responded: “100 per cent. And I didn’t want to use the material”, “they were out of date” and “we” had “started replacing their material from that point in time”.[35] Ms Galpin confirmed she would not be able to rely upon the material prepared by CCI which is why she “did the second tender bundle; to replace everything”. Ms Galpin said she did not want to use the CAQA materials or to deal with CCI.[36] When Ms Galpin was asked about the CAQA RPL Kits, she said that she “really would not want to use it”.[37]
[35] Transcript, P-62.
[36] Ibid, P-68.
[37] Ibid, P-69.
The Tribunal notes that the terms of the CCI Agreement, which was lodged with the Tribunal, provide that all intellectual property and related material that is developed or produced under the CCI Agreement will be the property of CCI and that Ms Galpin is to be granted a non-exclusive limited-use license of that intellectual property and related material.[38] A further term in the CCI Agreement states that the “title, copyright, intellectual property rights and distribution rights” of those materials will remain exclusively with CCI.[39] Upon termination of the CCI Agreement, the terms specify that Ms Galpin is required to return to CCI any property, documentation, records, or “Confidential Information”, which, again, is stated to be the property of CCI.[40]
[38] Ms Galpin’s First HTB, page 7 (Clause 16 of the CCI Agreement).
[39] Ibid, page 7 (Clause 17 of the CCI Agreement).
[40] Ibid, page 8 (Clause 19 of the CCI Agreement).
Upon further questioning during cross-examination, Ms Galpin said that if she was going to pay “an enormous amount of money for those documents” that she would “probably rearrange them and use them at some time”, because she said, “they’re quite in-depth documents”. Ms Galpin said that she could not really say “yes” or “no”, or to clarify this issue about whether she would use the CAQA documents, until she knew the outcome of the arbitration.[41]
[41] Transcript, P-70 & P-71.
The following day, Ms Galpin said once more, she did not intend to use the documents.[42]
[42] Ibid, P-237.
Regardless of Ms Galpin’s intentions about whether she proposed to use the materials developed by CCI, the Tribunal must consider whether Ms Galpin currently has the legal right to use them. At the moment, she does not. CCI has terminated the CCI Agreement. Under that agreement, Ms Galpin is required to return those materials to CCI. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that Ms Galpin has paid the outstanding fees to CCI or that CCI has reinstated the CCI Agreement. For this reason, it does not matter what Ms Galpin’s intentions are presently because, legally, she is not permitted to use the CAQA TASs or the CAQA RPL Kits developed by CCI as CCI owns the copyright in relation to those materials.
For this reason, the Tribunal will now turn to a consideration of the replacement TASs and RPL kits subsequently lodged by Ms Galpin after CCI terminated the CCI Agreement.
Replacement TASs and Replacement RPL Kits
On the first day of the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether there was a replacement TAS for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course which she would like the Tribunal to consider. Ms Galpin answered in the affirmative. When the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to point out where it could be found, Ms Galpin answered, “I couldn’t point you to it”.[43]
[43] Transcript P-95.
Ms Dhanji helpfully assisted Ms Galpin to locate the relevant documents. They were found in the Joint HTB at pages 201-212 for RGR40118 Certificate IV Course (‘Replacement Certificate IV TAS’) and pages 213-222 for RGR50118 Diploma Course (‘Replacement Diploma TAS’) (to be referred to collectively as the ‘Replacement TASs’). Ms Galpin confirmed that these documents are the replacement TASs to which she was referring.[44]
[44] Ibid, P-98 & P-99.
Ms Galpin was asked to describe the process of how she had developed the Replacement TASs. Ms Galpin indicated that she had prepared them.[45] Ms Galpin added that originally RTO Services had prepared the TASs in 2016, and that she had updated them before Christmas of 2023. Ms Galpin said she worked on it “all Christmas”. Ms Galpin confirmed she had reworked the documents and had “made some simple changes”. Ms Galpin was asked whether she would use the Replacement TASs if she were permitted to run the courses and she answered, “That’s correct”.[46]
[45] Ibid, P-95.
[46] Ibid, P-99 & P-100.
In respect to replacement RPL kits, Ms Galpin asserted that she had contextualised the RPL template from Western Australia.[47]
[47] Ibid, P-96.
Whether Ms Galpin complies with Clauses 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards
At the hearing, ASQA contended that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clauses 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2), for the following reasons:
(a)Ms Galpin has included superseded units of competency in her Replacement TASs;
(b)Ms Galpin has included inconsistent lists of units of competency in different parts of her Replacement TASs;
(c)Ms Galpin has included entry requirements in the Replacement TASs which are not consistent with the entry requirements in the relevant training packages;
(d)Ms Galpin has described, inconsistently, the entry requirements in different parts of the Replacement TASs;
(e)Ms Galpin has not adequately set out the mode of delivery of the RGR Courses in the Replacement TASs;
(f)Ms Galpin has not adequately referred to and explained in the Replacement TASs the third-party arrangements in the learner’s workplace; and
(g)Ms Galpin has not clearly, and consistently, described the duration of the course and the amount of training in the Replacement TASs.
Replacement TASs contain errors in that they list units of competency which are not prescribed units for the RGR Courses
The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin’s Replacement TASs contain errors in that they list units of competency which are not prescribed core or elective units of competency for the respective RGR Courses. Specifically:
(a)Ms Galpin’s Replacement Certificate IV TAS includes the following units in the table dealing with the delivery of the units for the course:[48] RGRCMN402A, RGRCMN422A, RGRPSH408A, RGRPSH417A, RGRPSH421A, RGRPSH503A, BSBSMB407A, RGRPSH301A, RGRPSH302A, RGRPSH409A, RGRPSH502A, RGRPSH504A, BSBITU203A, PUACOM001C, and SRXGRO002A. Ms Galpin also refers to those units again in the table in her Replacement Certificate IV TAS headed “Assessment Techniques”,[49] and in the table headed “Validation and Moderation Schedule”.[50] However, none of those units are listed as either core or elective units of competency for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course on pages 3 to 5 of downloadable PDF training package for this course; and
(b)Ms Galpin’s Replacement Diploma TAS includes the following units in the table dealing with the delivery of the units for the course:[51] RGRCMN402A, RGRPSH422A, RGRPSH501A, RGRPSH502A, RGRPSH504A, RGRPSH505A, BSBSUS501A, RGRPSH409A, RGRPSH420A, PUACOM001C, SRXGRO002A and BSBSMB403A. Ms Galpin also refers to those units again in the table in her Replacement Diploma TAS headed “Assessment Techniques”,[52] and in the table headed “Validation and Moderation Schedule”.[53] However, none of those units are listed as either core or elective units of competency for the RGR50118 Diploma Course on pages 3 and 4 of the downloadable PDF version of the training package for this course.
[48] Joint HTB, page 207.
[49] Ibid, pages 208 and 209.
[50] Ibid, pages 210 and 211.
[51] Joint HTB, page 218.
[52] Ibid, pages 219 and 220.
[53] Ibid, pages 221 and 222.
Ms Galpin sought to explain this error by saying that the units listed on page 207 were merely an “example of how it could be made up of the hours, what could be core units and what could be elective units”.[54] This explanation is not plausible. There is no reason why an example had to be used when the current prescribed units in the training package could have been used instead. Ms Galpin later conceded, albeit reluctantly, that the reference to those units, which do not form a current unit in the course, were errors in her current Replacement TASs which require correction.
[54] Transcript, P-111.
On the last day of the hearing, Ms Galpin was asked whether she intended to deliver the unit SRXGRO002 “Deal with conflict”. At first Ms Galpin said she did not know. When asked again, she said that this unit “could be on the electives list”.[55] When Ms Galpin was asked if she was unsure about this, she said “100 per cent. It’s on the elective list”.[56] Then, she said she would tell prospective learners she was not sure if she was offering this unit and she would need to “check up…what’s the most latest version”.
[55] Ibid, P-409.
[56] Ibid.
Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to a document she had lodged with the Tribunal, entitled “Australian Online Racing Accreditation A.O.R.A. – Deal with Conflict National Code: SRXGRO002 – RGR40115 Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer)”. This is A.O.R.A.’s Learner Guide for this particular unit.[57] Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the reference in this document to the course code “RGR40115”. Ms Galpin interjected and said there is a mistake there and she did not know how that has picked up a “5”. Ms Galpin also said:
[57] Ms Galpin’s Third HTB, pages 626-643.
MS GALPIN: …I’ve purchased it with ‘Manage workplace conflict’. It’s definitely a different title, and I’ve noticed it, and it is part of the package that has been submitted to the tribunal where I purchased from RTO Materials in Western Australia. So we’ve basically replaced this.
MS DHANJI: So Ms Galpin, if that’s the case, then why have you provided this unit to the tribunal?
MS GALPIN: I don’t know.
MS DHANJI: Ms Galpin, this unit does not exist on the national register.
MS GALPIN: It did, and we did upgrade it when we superseded it. And that’s the best answer I can give you this afternoon.
MS DHANJI: Okay. Ms Galpin, I’m going to - - -
MS GALPIN: Because I did purchase it from RTO Materials, and that was last year, 2023 in November – I believe it was completed by 5 December, those purchases. There were five full units purchased, and that was one of them. And it does have ‘Manage workplace conflict’, I think it might be the full title.
MS DHANJI: Ms Galpin, this unit doesn’t exist on the national register, and if you taught it, you would be breaching the NVR Act. Do you know that?
MS GALPIN: I do. They did exist, and it has been upgraded.
The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin’s Replacement TASs and the learning materials referred to above, demonstrate that Ms Galpin is not clear herself what units she is proposing to teach when delivering the RGR Courses, that she has included materials for units which do not exist on the national training register, and that her documentation requires significant corrections.
Inconsistent lists of units in different parts of the Replacement TASs
At the hearing, Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that all of the units she had included in the table of units of competency in her Replacement Certificate IV TAS had been superseded.[58] Despite Ms Galpin’s earlier evidence that it was her intention to use the Replacement TASs, Ms Galpin said that they were “still in a Windows document as a draft, and it’s noted as a draft”.[59] The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether she had checked the training.gov.au website before she had reworked the “RTO Services” template to create the Replacement TASs. Ms Galpin said she did not repopulate the table listing the units but that otherwise, she would need to take that question “on notice”.
[58] Transcript, P-111.
[59] Ibid.
When pressed a second time about this issue, Ms Galpin said she did, in fact, check training.gov.au. Ms Galpin was invited to explain why her Replacement Certificate IV TAS contained a superseded unit when her earlier evidence was that she had reworked the documents in 2023. Ms Galpin then claimed not to have done so in 2023. Ms Galpin changed her evidence and said she had “first formulated this document as an update in 2021” and it was set aside as CCI did not want her to use her documents. She said that CCI had replaced all of her documents and then she had started to work on them again in Christmas 2023. Ms Galpin added:[60]
MS GALPIN: And I did look at training.gov. I’ve left this in the draft. I’m not saying that there is perhaps some corrections. I haven’t touched the table on [page 207 Joint HTB] but I did amend the core units and the electives on 202 to 205.
TRIBUNAL:So if I was to allow you to start operating – your evidence before was you intend to use this TAS – do you accept that you would proceed to be using a TAS that’s inaccurate, that’s wrong, that’s referring to superseded units?
MS GALPIN: As I stated, I was looking at that as an example of what the units would entail for their 40 to 100 hours that would be expected. I can correct it so that we can actually it a more reliable document and put further on 222 – but, you know, there’s only 16 units that need to be over there, so the - - -
TRIBUNAL: Do you accept that it needs correction?
MS GALPIN: I do. I don’t see it as an example.
[60] Ibid, P-113.
Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the earlier iteration of the TAS for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course on “Australian Online Racing Accreditation A.O.R.A.” letterhead which was marked (as a footnote) as “Version 2, March 2016” (‘2016 A.O.R.A. Certificate IV TAS’).[61] Ms Dhanji put a proposition to Ms Galpin that the 2016 A.O.R.A. Certificate IV TAS was identical to the Replacement Certificate IV TAS.[62] Ms Galpin responded that “I think we’ve already confirmed that”. Ms Galpin confirmed that the 2016 A.O.R.A. Certificate IV TAS was the TAS for the RGR Certificate IV course at that time (that is, as of 2016).[63] Ms Galpin asserted that this TAS was found to be fully compliant. Ms Galpin accepted that her decision to leave this table unamended in the Replacement Certificate IV, was a mistake, and this had led to an error in the documentation which required correction.[64]
[61] Joint HTB, pages 185-192. Transcript P-114 & P-115.
[62] Transcript P-115.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
The Tribunal notes from the above that Ms Galpin changed her evidence about whether and when she had worked on the 2016 A.O.R.A. Certificate IV TAS after 2016 in producing the Replacement Certificate IV TAS. The Tribunal does not consider that Ms Galpin has sought to deliberately mislead the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal regards Ms Galpin’s memory as unreliable and consequently, her evidence about how she had developed her RTO resources including how and when changes were made to update certain documents, is unreliable. This has left a poor impression about whether Ms Galpin has the capability to manage the paperwork and administration which will be required to keep her TASs for the RGR Courses up-to-date and to ensure that they remain compliant with the requirements of the relevant training packages.
On the second day of the hearing, Ms Dhanji put a specific proposition to Ms Galpin that she had included superseded units in her list of units of competency in her Replacement Certificate IV TAS in the table on page 207 of the Joint HTB . Ms Galpin disagreed. When asked if she had checked this, Ms Galpin responded “Absolutely”.[65] She said she had checked it on the previous night. Ms Galpin explained how she had checked it, as follows:[66]
If you go onto training.gov and you go back to the 2013 package, which is as far as what it goes, release one, release two, and release three, these units still have a form of currency. If you take the A’s off, they’re the same numbers. It’s just a new release. And if you look at what – Diane McNaughton, who is the head of Skills Impact, she’ll say that these are equivalent. So ‘superseded’ is a large word.
[65] Ibid, P-220.
[66] Ibid, P-220 & P-221.
Ms Galpin agreed with Ms Dhanji that there are dates up until which superseded units may be taught and thereafter, the new iteration of the unit must be taught. Ms Galpin agreed that this is a “teach-out period” and she stated that it is usually 12 months.[67] Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin whether the units she had listed in her TAS were still within their teach-out period. Ms Galpin answered, “Take the ‘A’ off, and yes. They’re equivalent”. However, the Tribunal considers that it is irrelevant that a unit referred to in the list in Ms Galpin’s Replacement Certificate IV TAS is an equivalent unit to the current unit of competency required for the RGR40118 Certificate IV qualification. The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin has erroneously listed superseded units in the Replacement Certificate IV TAS which are no longer permitted to be taught to a learner seeking this qualification. These are specified in further detail below. This is a significant error and the Tribunal does not accept that it should disregard this error by taking the “A” off the code as Ms Galpin has suggested. The “A” is currently on the code that Ms Galpin has used in her Replacement Certificate IV TAS.
[67] Transcript, P-222.
The unit codes in Ms Galpin’s TASs must be correct. They are clearly prescribed in the relevant training packages on the national training register, on the training.gov.au website. There is no justification or reason as to why they could not have been stated correctly in Ms Galpin’s Replacement TASs.
The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin’s Replacement TASs contain an inconsistent list of units in different parts of those documents. Specifically:
(a)in relation to the Replacement Certificate IV TAS, the units referred to in paragraph [119(a)] above are different from the units referred to in the table in the Replacement Certificate IV TAS (on pages 202 to 205 of the Joint HTB) appearing after a table headed “Packaging Rules”. The Tribunal acknowledges that the list of units appearing in this section are the core and elective units prescribed by the training package for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course. However, the inclusion by Ms Galpin of inconsistent lists of the units at different places in her Replacement Certificate IV TAS is bound to cause confusion to the learner; and
(b)in relation to the Replacement Diploma TAS, the units referred to in paragraph [119(b)] above are different from the units referred to in the table in the Replacement Diploma TAS (on pages 214 to 216 of the Joint HTB) appearing after a table headed “Packaging Rules”. The Tribunal acknowledges that the list of units appearing in this section are the core and elective units prescribed by the training package for the RGR50118 Diploma Course. However, the inclusion by Ms Galpin of inconsistent lists of the units at different places in her Replacement Diploma TAS is bound to cause confusion to the learner.
When delivering full courses, Ms Galpin should be ready and able to consistently identify in her TASs the core and elective units in accordance with the structure as prescribed by the relevant training package on the national training register. Based on Ms Galpin’s Replacement TASs, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin has not achieved this and the errors in her Replacement TASs require correction.
Ms Galpin’s stated entry requirements in her Replacement TASs are inconsistent, unclear, refer to incorrect course names and codes, and do not explain that they are different from the stated entry requirements in the relevant training packages
ASQA contends that Ms Galpin’s description of the entry requirements for the RGR Courses within the Replacement TASs are inconsistent throughout that document, contain references to incorrect course names and codes and are inconsistent with the entry requirements set out in the relevant training packages.
The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin’s qualifications and vocational experience in relation to vocational education and training and/or in relation to the training race horses, are outdated. The Tribunal is required to make an assessment about Ms Galpin’s current level of knowledge, skills, and experience, to decide whether she is capable of leading a training organisation in the delivery of the RGR Courses. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this is the case. Her qualifications and experience as a trainer are now outdated. Time has moved on for the racing industry and aspects of the industry. The functions of the bodies that govern it, have changed. It became evident during the hearing that Ms Galpin’s knowledge about the racing industry is not current and is lacking.
For one thing, Ms Galpin was unaware, until it was brought to her attention at the hearing, that the functions of the Australian Racing Board have now been merged into Racing Australia. Ms Galpin continued throughout the hearing to incorrectly refer to “Racing Australia” as “Australian Racing” and she also continued to include website references in her training and assessment materials to the website of a media outlet, that is, “racing.com”, instead of the correct governing body for the industry body responsible for the rules of racing and the licensing requirements for the different States and Territories. The Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin’s current level of capacity falls short of what is required for her to facilitate a training organisation to deliver quality RGR Courses to learners by providing correct information and links to learners about the racing industry in the place where they reside.
Between the second day and final day of the hearing, to assist the Tribunal, ASQA lodged an aide memoire providing information about the merger of the Australian Racing Board into another body, being Racing Australia. This was put to Ms Galpin on the last day of the hearing. When referred to the information provided by ASQA in ASQA’s Aide Memoire and asked if Ms Galpin agreed with it, Ms Galpin responded as follows:[188]
Racing Australia does all your nominations and all your functionals. The Australian Racing Board governs. They’re the top governors.
…
They merge, once they complete the function they’re erasing. So it’s, like, say, with (indistinct), it’s a non-functionary racing. It’s very complicated.
[188] Transcript, P-413 & P-414.
On the last day of the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if she had been to the Australian Racing Board website to check the accuracy of the evidence she had given on the second day of the hearing. Ms Galpin said she had done so. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to provide the website address she had visited. She was unable to do so. In answer to a question from the Tribunal, Ms Galpin confirmed that if she were permitted to teach students, she would tell them about the body which is operating, as being the Australian Racing Board.[189] The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin which website she would direct the students to if they asked for information about the Australian Racing Board. Ms Galpin claimed to have downloaded the website and to have submitted it as evidence in this matter on either 7 or 8 December 2024. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether she had a page number for this document to which she said “No”.
[189] Ibid, P-415.
To assist the Tribunal, Ms Dhanji stated that Ms Galpin may have been referring to Ms Galpin’s email sent to the Tribunal at 11.53am on 8 December 2024. Ms Galpin said she understood this body to be the “peak body – peak authority”.[190] Ms Galpin was asked whether this body was still operating and again, Ms Galpin said “Correct”. When asked whether she had anything to say about ASQA’s Aide Memoire about this, Ms Galpin said “I went through that I don’t agree with”. Ms Galpin said that “The Australian Racing body has – it still exists” and that it is operating. When asked whether the Australian Racing Board’s operation had been merged into Racing Australia and whether its functions were now undertaken by Racing Australian, Ms Galpin said:
They’re still the decision-makers – would go to the board of the Australian Racing Board if there were changes and amendments.
[190] Transcript, P-416.
Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin about the website. Ms Galpin said it was owned by “Victorian Racing and Channel 7” and has “a lot of different things on it”. She said the does not “govern” racing.[191] She said they own “media rights” and that “Channel 7 has the right to put trials and races up and sell them all over the world”.[192]
[191] Ibid, P-418.
[192] Ibid, P-419.
Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that her Replacement TASs state that licensing conditions are on the website and that this is “not the right reference”.[193] Ms Galpin answered, “No, that’s not correct” and that “If you go to racing.com you will find how to apply for your license, how to become a stable hand, careers, welfare documents. It’s really complicated. There’s a lot of information on racing.com”.[194] Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that is a media website. Ms Galpin responded that it was not just a media website but it is a website in conjunction with “Victoria Racing”.
[193] Ibid.
[194] Ibid, P-419.
The Tribunal referred Ms Galpin to the A.O.R.A. Learner Guide she had lodged with the Tribunal between the second and last days of the hearing in respect of unit RGRCMN203 “Comply with Racing Industry Ethics and Integrity”. The Tribunal notes that this is a core unit of competency required to be completed for the RGR40118 Certificate IV qualification as prescribed in the training package. The Learner Guide contains the following information for learners (underlining emphasis added):
The Racing Industry
The thoroughbred racing industry is a strong contributor to the Australian economy. The general public invest billions each year in wagering on the product therefore it is imperative that the industry is accountable for its actions. If you work within racing in any way you are bound by the rules and regulations of the industry. The Rules of Racing are available for download on the website: and from AORA in your package. The rules are clear and precise; any breaches to these rules are dealt with by the stewards from Integrity Services. As a participant it is your responsibility to be aware of the rules and ignorance is not accepted as a defendable position.
The rules are broken into two clauses which are AR=Australian Rules that govern all states and territories and LR=Local Rules that apply to the state or territory they are issued in.
…
…
Structure of the industry
The Australian Racing industry is structured across national and state levels.
National: Australian Racing Board
The Australian Racing Board (ARB) was established in June, 1998. The precursors to the ARB were the Australian Conference of Principal Racing Clubs (ACPC) and the National Office of Australian Racing (NOAR). It is a not-for-profit organisation with objectives that are concentrated on developing, encouraging and promoting the sport of thoroughbred racing throughout Australia.
Its members are the Principal Racing Authorities (PRAs) that supervise and control thoroughbred racing in each State and Territory. Under its Constitution ARB is established to make, change and administer the Australian Rules of Racing and to otherwise do all things whatsoever that the Board considers to be conducive to developing, encouraging, promoting or managing the Australian thoroughbred racing industry. Source:
PRA’s are the following authorities:
Racing Victoria Limited
Racing NSW
Queensland Racing
Thoroughbred Racing S.A Limited
Racing & Wagering Western Australia (RWWA)
Tasmanian Thoroughbred Racing Council
Thoroughbred Racing NT
Canberra Racing Club Inc.
Aspects the Australian Racing Board deals with include:
• Prohibited substances
• Administer the Rules of Racing
• International function
• Government liaison
• Improving the standards of racing
• Education and training of participants
• Promotion and marketing of racing
• Animal welfare
• Selection of riders for overseas representation
• handicapping
When asked about this unit of competency, Ms Galpin described the unit as follows:[195]
That you understand the rules and you understand the ethics and you understand the integrity and the dress codes and position that you need to take on a racecourse and how you’re supposed to treat officials, stewards.
[195] Transcript, P-420.
The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether she intends to use the Learner Guide for this unit if she were to open her doors tomorrow. Ms Galpin responded, “I would like to”. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if this meant “yes” or “no”. Ms Galpin said “I don’t know anymore. I’m sorry”. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if there was a more recent version of the Learner Guide, she would be using or whether she intends to use the one referred to above. Ms Galpin did not provide an answer to this question and instead, responded that she would “like a proofreader” because she knew of her “inadequacies”.[196]
[196] Ibid, P-421 & P-422.
On the last day of the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if she agreed with a proposition put to her that it was important that her training organisation got “things right” in terms of the information provided to the learners, the drills, the guides, the assessments provided and the evaluation undertaken on those assessments, including the remote supervision or feedback received from the people the learners are working with. Ms Galpin said she agreed but that she wanted to state that “people that actually can do a skill aren’t necessarily – their strengths aren’t necessarily as strong in theory, but what they have to do here is prove that they can do the task. That’s the key”.[197]
[197] Transcript, P-435.
The errors in Ms Galpin’s Learner Guide for this unit are not confined to typographic errors. They extend to substantive errors on the information provided to students about the racing industry, the governing bodies, and where to access information about the Rules of Racing. The inclusion of the link to is incorrect. This website does not exist. There is no mention in the Learning Guide to the organisation Racing Australia, which has taken over the previous functions of the Australian Racing Board. This Learner Guide refers to Racing Victoria Incorporated and principal racing authorities in other states but it does not provide the relevant website links for those entities (for example, for Racing Victoria).
Ms Galpin was initially reluctant to acknowledge that the industry had changed until these matters were brought to her attention in ASQA’s Aide Memoire and by ASQA’s counsel during cross-examination of Ms Galpin on the last day of the hearing. The information in Ms Galpin’s Learner Guides is out of date and the Tribunal considers that it is likely to mislead a learner about important aspects of the racing industry, rather than to be educative.
When asked why Ms Galpin has not yet updated her Learner Guide, Ms Galpin gave the following evidence:[198]
MS GALPIN: In the last 12 months I’ve endeavoured to get myself some infrastructure and some support around me. I’ve spent quite a lot of money doing that and I’ve found those people to be extremely inadequate. I am one person. I have supplied the updated information which I would supply to a student, but to continually update it every year. I’ve been out of work for six years.
SENIOR MEMBER: But sorry, Ms Galpin, wouldn’t that be more of a reason why you would be able to get everything in order?
MS GALPIN: I work day and night, Member. I work day and night. It destroyed me.
[198] Ibid, P-423 & P-424.
The Tribunal finds that there has been an adequate opportunity for Ms Galpin to update her Learner Guides so that they contain updated information and links about the racing industry. This has not occurred. The Tribunal does not consider there to be any identifiable legitimate reason as to why Ms Galpin has not been able to facilitate appropriate amendments to her Learner Guides in the many years during which this review proceeding has been on foot when given the opportunity to do so. The Tribunal does not accept the explanation put forward by Ms Galpin as to why she has not yet done so and it reflects poorly on Ms Galpin to seek to blame others for why this has not occurred. Instead, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin lacks the knowledge and capacity to bring (whether by her own actions or the actions of others) the Learner Guides up to a level where they are current and free from substantive errors.
In conclusion, the Tribunal has no confidence that Ms Galpin has the capacity, based on her current knowledge, to lead a training organisation in the delivery of the RGR Courses.
Ms Galpin’s suitability to oversee an administrative online training organisation
Ms Galpin lodged many documents with the Tribunal over the course of this proceeding which contained multiple formatting and typographic errors. Ms Galpin accepted that she has challenges with written correspondence and explained that when she engaged in study previously, she was assisted by a person to help her with those challenges. When asked how she proposed to manage the written correspondence in relation to her proposed training organisation’s administrative functions, Ms Galpin said will employ people to do the office work and the administration. Ms Galpin mentioned that she had employed seven or eight people previously. She confirmed she does not have anyone employed at the moment, and explained there was no reason to do so as she is not currently registered (as an RTO).[199]
[199] Transcript, P-106.
The Tribunal has decided not to factor this matter into account in making its decision because there are more significant problems afoot with the contents of Ms Galpin materials she is proposing to use if her registration was restored. Those problems arise because Ms Galpin does not have current vocational experience and knowledge and has not kept abreast of important changes in the racing industry for the Tribunal to be confident that she is capable of overseeing the delivery of the two RGR Courses.
At the hearing, Ms Dhanji, on behalf of ASQA, contended that the manner in which Ms Galpin’s documents have been produced, as well as their content, indicates that she has not been able to cogently explain how she will run the RTO or deliver high quality vocational educational training. Ms Dhanji also highlights it is of “serious concern” that Ms Galpin has placed material before the Tribunal, that “if taught, would breach the NVR Act”.[200] Ms Dhanji gave specific examples of such material. Ms Dhanji highlighted that Ms Galpin had included materials in respect of the following units which are not, in fact, units of competency in the training package for the RGR Courses:[201]
(a)BSBITU203 “Communicate electronically”;[202]
(b)BSBMB303 “Organise finances for the micro business”;[203]
(c)PUACOM001B, “Communicate in the workplace”;[204]
(d)RGRCMN201, “Follow OHS Procedures and Observe Environmental Work Practices”;[205]
(e)RGRCMN401 “Maintain and monitor OHS procedures and environmental work practices”;[206] and
(f)SRXGRO002 “Deal with conflict”.[207]
[200] Transcript, P-494.
[201] Ibid, P-495 & P-496.
[202] Ms Galpin’s Third HTB, pages 1-12.
[203] Ibid, pages 13-41.
[204] Ms Galpin’s Second HTB, Document 47.
[205] Ms Galpin’s Third HTB, page 195-236.
[206] Ms Galpin’s Second HTB, Document 48.
[207] Ms Galpin’s Third HTB, pages 626-643.
The Tribunal accepts Ms Dhanji’s contentions as set out in the above paragraph. The Tribunal also notes that Ms Galpin only partially complied with the Tribunal’s direction to lodge the learner guides for the 16 units of competency she was proposing to deliver as part of the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course. Specifically, Ms Galpin’s lodged the following:
(a)Learner Guides for the following units only:
(i)BSBITU203 “Communicate Electronically” (Document 1);
(ii)BSBSMB303 “Organise Finances for the Micro Business” (Document 2);
(iii)BSBSMB403 “Market for Small Business” (Document 3);
(iv)BSBSMB407 “Manage a Small Team” (Document 4);
(v)BSBSUS501 “Develop Workplace Policies and Procedures” (Document 5);
(vi)PUACOM001 “Communicate in the Workplace” (Document 6);
(vii)RGRCMN201 “Follow OHS Procedures and Observe Environmental Work Practices” (Document 7);
(viii)RGRCMN305 “Participate in Protests, Inquiries and Appeals” (Document 8);
(ix)RGRCMN401 “Maintain and Monitor OHS Procedures and Environmental Work Practices” (Document 9);
(x)RGRCMN402 “Participate in Media Interviews for Racing” (Document 10);
(xi)RGRCMN001 “Comply with the Rules of Racing and Related Protocols” (Document 11);
(xii)RGRCMN203 “Comply with the Racing Industry Ethics and Integrity” (Document 12);
(xiii)RGRPSH301A “Implement Stable Operations” (Document 13);
(xiv)RGRPSH302 “Supervise Handling of Horses” (Document 14);
(xv)RGRPSH401A “Relate Anatomical and Physiological Features to the Care and Treatment of Horses” (Document 15);
(xvi)RGRPSH408A “Manage Horse Health and Welfare” (Document 16) [This unit is not a current unit of the course – should be RGRPSH408 Manage horse health and welfare].
(xvii)RGRPSH409 “Determine Nutritional Requirements for Racing Horses” (Document 17);
(xviii)RGRPSH420 “Participate in Implementing Racehorse Exercise Programs” (Document 18);
(xix)RGRPSH421A “Operate horse racing training business” (Document 19/20);
(xx)RGRPSH422 “Promote and maintain business arrangements with racehorse owners” (Document 21);
(xxi)RGRPSH502 “Plan and Implement Education of Horses for Racing” (Document 22);
(xxii)RGRPSH503 “Trial and Race Horses” (Document 23);
(xxiii)RGRPSH504 “Develop Systems and Records for Horse Racing Business” (Document 24/25);
(xxiv)SRXGRO002 “Learner Guide for Deal with Conflict” (Document 26);
(xxv)Trainer Manual: BSBWHS301 “Maintain Workplace Safety” (Document 76);
(xxvi)Learner Resource (and PowerPoint presentation) BSBWHS301 “Maintain Workplace Safety” (Documents 77 & 78);
(xxvii)PowerPoint Presentation BSBWHS301 “Maintain Workplace Safety” (Document 78); and
(xxviii)Learner resource, training manual and PowerPoint presentation for BSBWHS401 “Implement and monitor WHS policies, procedures and programs to meet legislative requirements” (Documents 80/81 & 82/83 & 84/85).
When complying with the Tribunal’s direction to produce the 33 documents referred to in paragraph [340] above, the Tribunal notes the following:
(a)Ms Galpin arranged to purchase from a third party contractor the training materials for one of the RGR40118 core units (that is, BSBWHS301 “Maintain Workplace Safety”) on 11 December 2024 so that she could lodge it with the Tribunal in compliance with the Tribunal’s direction;
(b)Ms Galpin lodged the Learner Guide for a superseded unit RGRPSH421A “Operate horse racing training business”, instead of the current core unit RGRPSH421. RGRPSH421A is not a prescribed unit for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course;
(c)Ms Galpin lodged the Learner Guide for a superseded unit RGRPSH408A, instead of the current core unit RGRPSH408 “Manage horse health and welfare”. RGRPSH408A is not a prescribed unit for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course;
(d)Ms Galpin lodged the Learner Guide for a superseded unit RGRPSH301A “Implement Stable Operations”, instead of the current elective unit RGRPSH301. RGRPSH301A is not a prescribed unit for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course;
(e)Ms Galpin lodged the Learner Guide for a superseded unit RGRPSH401A “Relate Anatomical and Physiological Features to the Care and Treatment of Horses”, instead of the current elective unit RGRPSH401. RGRPSH401A is not a prescribed unit for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course;
(f)Ms Galpin lodged Learner Guides for eight units, namely, BSBITU203 “Communicate Electronically”, BSBSMB303 “Organise Finances for the Micro Business”, PUACOM001 “Communicate in the Workplace”, RGRCMN201 “Follow OHS Procedures and Observe Environmental Work Practices”, RGRCMN401 “Maintain and Monitor OHS Procedures and Environmental Work Practices”, RGRCMN001 “Comply with the Rules of Racing and Related Protocols”; SRXGRO002 “Learner Guide for Deal with Conflict”; and BSBWHS401 “Implement and monitor WHS policies, procedures and programs to meet legislative requirements”, none of which are either core or elective prescribed units for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course.
Ms Dhanji submitted that:
(a)unit BSBITU203 and unit BSBMB303 are not units of competency required to be undertaken either as an elective unit or a core unit in either of the two RGR Courses (or indeed for that matter in any of the qualifications within the RGR Racing and Breeding training package). This is correct. The prescribed list of units of competency as set out in the training packages for the two RGR Courses do not include either of those units; and
(b)the remaining units PUACOM001B, RGRCMN201, RGRCMN401A, and RXGRO002, no longer exist.
The Tribunal notes that the training.gov.au website records as follows, in relation to the remaining four units:
(a)unit PUACOM001B was previously a unit within the now superseded RGR40108 and RGR50108 courses. Importantly, it is not a unit listed within either the RGR40118 or RGR50118 courses. It is recorded as being a “deleted” unit of competency. In this regard, the Tribunal agrees with Ms Dhanji’s submission about this unit;
(b)unit RGRCMN201 is listed on training.gov.au as the unit code for the subject “Investigate job opportunities in racing and related industries”. Unit RGRCMN201 is a current unit but it is not a unit which is included in the core or elective unit list for either of the two RGR Courses. In this regard, the Tribunal agrees with Ms Dhanji’s submission about this unit. The Tribunal also notes that Ms Galpin, on her learner guide for unit RGRCMN201, has referred to the subject title on the first page as being “Follow OHS procedures and observe environment work practices”. This subject title is incorrect in that the unit code (or the unit subject title), must be a mistake and does not align with the information on the training.gov.au for unit code RGRCMN201;
(c)unit RGRCMN401 is listed on training.gov.au as the unit code for the subject “Maintain and monitor OHS procedures and environmental work practices”. Unit RGRCMN401 was previously a unit within the now superseded RGR40108 course. Importantly, it is not a unit listed within either the RGR40118 or RGR50118 courses. It is recorded as being a “deleted” unit of competency. In this regard, the Tribunal agrees with Ms Dhanji’s submission about this unit; and
(d)unit SRXGRO002 was previously a unit within the now superseded RGR40108 and RGR50108 courses. Importantly, it is not a unit listed within either the RGR40118 or RGR50118 courses. It is recorded as being a “deleted” unit of competency. In this regard, the Tribunal agrees with Ms Dhanji’s submission about this unit.
The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin has put forward to the Tribunal and seeks to rely upon learner guides for units which do not constitute a unit of competency for the two RGR Courses she is proposing to deliver. At the hearing, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin why she had included this material. Ms Galpin response was, “I didn’t actually realise that I did”,[208] and then offered the following explanation:[209]
Because I had – when I unpacked a huge zip file, I have certificate IIIs, certificate IIs, certificate IVs, certificate IV. So I’m not suggesting that it was perfectly (indistinct) when it came through to you. I have been looking this afternoon for where the (indistinct) where’s this rejected to the portals, so that I can actually access that portal. It might make delivery a lot better and a lot more straight forward, but I wasn’t able to. I tried to but anyway.
[208] Transcript, P-497.
[209] Ibid, P-497.
Ms Galpin offered another possible explanation:[210]
So they might have been on the elective list of the old elective list, so that’d be where I’ve made a mistake because they are long lists the elective lists.
[210] Ibid, P-498.
The Tribunal does not consider either of those explanations to be a legitimate reason to explain why Ms Galpin has erroneously put forward training materials to the Tribunal for units which do not form part of the two RGR Courses she intends to deliver if her registration is restored.
Ms Galpin has demonstrated on numerous instances during this proceeding that her skill base and knowledge in using modern technology is significantly lacking. Ms Galpin was incapable of using the Tribunal’s online lodgement system to lodge her evidence. Ms Galpin also sent important documents to an incorrect email address for a representative at ASQA which necessitated the re-submission of those documents to ASQA at a much later time. At the hearing, Ms Galpin was unable to navigate her own documents or to refer the Tribunal to the page numbers of the materials she was seeking to rely upon when making assertions to the Tribunal throughout the hearing of this application. Ms Dhanji graciously assisted Ms Galpin but it is reasonable to expect that Ms Galpin would be capable, herself, of doing so, if she hopes to operate an administratively intensive online training organisation and to oversee its operations in the capacity of a higher managerial agent of the RTO.
On balance, the Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin is not capable, at a substantive level, of competently managing the onerous documentary and administrative requirements of operating an RTO, even if she was assisted by other persons to do so, or to identify and correct substantive errors to the content of her learning materials for the units in the two RGR Courses when she makes them. The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin does not have the skill base to be able to do so and that she is incapable of meeting the administrative requirements of a higher managerial officer of an RTO, which Ms Galpin would become, were her registration to be restored.
Conclusion in relation to whether Ms Galpin meets the condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act
The Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not meet the condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act, because she has not demonstrated that she has a commitment to deliver quality VET for the reasons set out in paragraphs [268] to [272].
In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not meet the condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act, because she has not demonstrated that she has the capability to deliver quality VET because:
(a)Ms Galpin does not have sufficient current knowledge about the racing industry, laws, and licensing requirements, to be capable of delivering quality VET in respect of the RGR Courses; or alternatively
(b)Ms Galpin’s qualifications are outdated and/or some of them lack relevance to the proposed two RGR Courses and/or training and assessing VET courses; or alternatively
(c)Ms Galpin does not have the capability of being able to competently manage the onerous documentary and administrative requirements of operating an RTO, even if she was assisted by other persons to do so, nor is she capable of identifying and correcting substantive errors in the content of her learning and assessment materials for the units of competency prescribed for the two RGR Courses.
CONCLUSION
The Standards provide that for an organisation to meet a Standard, that each clause of the Standard must be met.
Because Ms Galpin has failed to meet Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2), the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not meet Standard 1 of the Standards and for this reason, does not meet the condition of registration under s 22 of the NVR Act.
In the alternative, because Ms Galpin has failed to meet Clause 1.8, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not meet Standard 1 and for this reason, does not meet the condition of registration under s 22 of the NVR Act.
The Tribunal considers that Ms Galpin’s failure to meet this condition of registration under s 22 is an appropriate circumstance upon which it decides that Ms Galpin’s registration is to remain cancelled.
In the alternative and based on the conclusions set out in paragraph [349] or subparagraphs [350(a)], [350(b)] or [350(c)], taken separately or in combination, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin has not demonstrated a commitment, and a capability, to deliver quality VET. For this reason, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not meet the further condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act. On this basis, even if the Tribunal is found to be wrong about its conclusion as set out in the above paragraphs [354] above, the Tribunal considers that Ms Galpin’s failure to meet this condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act, is an appropriate circumstance upon which to decide, as it now does, that Ms Galpin’s registration is to remain cancelled.
The Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.
Dates of hearing: 5, 6 & 16 December 2024 Date final submissions received: 17 April 2025 Applicant: In person Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Dhanji Solicitors for the Respondent: ASQA In-house Lawyer
0
2
0