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

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 309
Legislative 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 2015
Companion 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…

Details

AGLC: 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
Case: [2025] ARTA 685
Decision Date: 24 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maxine Elizabeth Galpin, trading as Australian Online Racing Accreditation or A.O.R.A., and the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Skills and Quality Authority were before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the cancellation of Galpin's registration as a vocational education and training organisation. The primary dispute involved whether Galpin's organisation met the conditions for registration under sections 22 and 22A of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, specifically concerning the alleged non-compliance with certain clauses of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the cancellation of Galpin's registration was justified due to her failure to meet the specified standards and conditions for registering as a vocational education and training organisation.

The central legal issues the Tribunal needed to resolve were whether Galpin's organisation fulfilled the requirements set out in sections 22 and 22A of the NVR Act and whether her non-compliance with certain clauses of the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 warranted the cancellation of her registration. The Tribunal considered whether Galpin had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the Standards and whether she had the capability to deliver quality vocational education and training (VET).

The Tribunal concluded that Galpin's organisation did not meet the conditions of registration under sections 22 and 22A of the NVR Act. The Tribunal found that Galpin had not sufficiently demonstrated compliance with Clauses 1.1 and 1.8 of the Standards, which are critical for meeting the conditions of registration. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that Galpin lacked the capability to deliver quality VET, as evidenced by her outdated knowledge, inadequate qualifications, and inability to manage the administrative requirements of operating an RTO effectively. The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Galpin's registration based on these findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to affirm the cancellation of Galpin's registration as a vocational education and training organisation, finding that she had not met the conditions of registration under sections 22 and 22A of the NVR Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on Galpin's ongoing non-compliance with the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 and her demonstrated inability to deliver quality VET.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

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.

Decision

Reasons for decision

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.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

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.