Decision: The Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.

...............[SGD].........................................................

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

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)

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

Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015 (Cth) (as amended and in force on 1 March 2024)

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 - https://www.aqf.edu.au/download/405/aqf-second-edition/3/aqf-second-edition/pdf

1. 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.".
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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').

5. 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'.
6. Ms Galpin sought review of the Decision Under Review by the then General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT').
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.

1. 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.
2. 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.

3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

6. 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.

1. Section 155 of the NVR Act establishes a framework for the national regulation of VET by ASQA.
2. 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.

3. 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. Subdivision B of the NVR Act (comprising s 21 to s 30 inclusive) sets out various conditions of registration.
5. 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.

6. 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.
7. 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').
8. 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].
9. 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".
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Part 2 of the Standards deals with "Training and assessment" and contains Standard 1 and Standard 2.

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.

2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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

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.

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.

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.

Evidence presented for assessment is consistently interpreted and assessment results are comparable irrespective of the assessor conducting the assessment.

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.

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.

The assessor is assured that the evidence presented for assessment is the learner's own work.

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.

1. 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.

1. 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]
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

1. On 3 July 2024, Ms Galpin's lawyer ceased to act for Ms Galpin in this matter. Thereafter, Ms Galpin was self-represented.
2. Over various dates in August and September 2024, Ms Galpin continued to provide new rectification evidence to ASQA.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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]
6. On 4 December 2024, ASQA lodged a joint hearing tender bundle totalling 837 pages.[11]
7. On 5 December 2024, an indexed and paginated version of joint hearing tender bundle was lodged by ASQA with the Tribunal ('Joint HTB').

1. 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.
2. 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]
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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]
6. 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').
7. 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').
8. 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]
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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]
12. 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.
13. 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.

1. 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.
2. On 15 November 2023, as mentioned above, ASQA lodged ASQA's Position Paper.
3. 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').
4. 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]
5. 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').
6. 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').

1. 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.

2. 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".
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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..."
7. 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.
8. 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.

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

1. 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

1. 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.
2. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

1. 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

1. 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).
2. 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.'

3. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.'

3. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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]

1. 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.
2. 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]
3. 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] > > (b) a new TAS for the RGR50118 Diploma Course ('CAQA Diploma TAS);[32] and > > (c) RPL kits for the following units:[33] > > > (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.

4. 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'.
5. 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.
6. 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]

7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. The following day, Ms Galpin said once more, she did not intend to use the documents.[42]
11. 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.
12. 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.

1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. In respect to replacement RPL kits, Ms Galpin asserted that she had contextualised the RPL template from Western Australia.[47]

Whether Ms Galpin complies with Clauses 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards

1. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.
3. 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".
4. 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:

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.

5. 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

1. 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".
2. 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.

3. 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]
4. 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.
5. 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.

6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.

9. 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

1. 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.
2. There does appear to be any rule, law or policy which would prevent an RTO from imposing additional entry requirements for a course further to those prescribed in the relevant training packages but it does appear from ASQA's Users' Policy that ASQA suggests that an RTO should inform the learner if they are doing so.
3. The Tribunal notes that the training package stipulates clear mandatory entry requirements for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course, as follows:

To undertake this qualification the individual must have:

• a racing industry Certificate III qualification demonstrating industry-relevant experience in the care, welfare and management of horses such as RGR30518 Certificate III in Racing (Trackwork Rider), or RGR30218 Certificate III in Racing (Stablehand), or RGR30318 Certificate III in Racing (Driving Stablehand).

• demonstrated equivalent skills and knowledge in the care, welfare and management of horses commensurate with the qualifications above.

1. The Tribunal will refer to the entry requirements set out in the above paragraph as the 'RGR40118 Certificate IV Entry Requirements'.
2. In Ms Galpin's Replacement Certificate IV TAS, Mr Galpin has described, inconsistently, the entry requirements for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course in two different places, specifically:

(a) under the heading "Entry Requirements/Pre-requisites", that (emphasis added):[68] > > To undertake this qualification the candidate will have extensive industry−relevant experience in the care, welfare and management of horses. Before commencing this qualification, candidates must be able to demonstrate that they have the appropriate skills and knowledge commensurate with RGR30208 Certificate III in Racing (Advanced Stablehand). > > (b) under the heading "Pathways Information - Entry", the entry pathway is described as "RGR30118 Certificate III in Racing (Trackrider) RGR40118 Certificate IV Racehorse trainer".[69]

3. In subparagraph [137(b)], Ms Galpin has referred to a course which does not exist, that is, RGR30118 Certificate III in Racing (Trackrider).
4. In subparagraph [137(b)], Ms Galpin has referred to a course which is no longer current, that is, RGR30208 Certificate III in Racing (Advanced Stablehand).
5. In subparagraph [137(a)], Ms Galpin has described one of the courses using an incorrect course name, that is, "RGR40118 Certificate IV Racehorse trainer". The correct name of this course is "Certificate IV Racing (Racehorse Trainer)".
6. In subparagraph [137(b)], It is non-sensical that an entry pathway to doing the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course is that the person already has a RGR40118 Certificate IV Racing (Racehorse Trainer) qualification.
7. The entry requirements described in the two different parts of Ms Galpin's Replacement Certificate IV TAS, as set out in subparagraph [137(a)] and subparagraph [137(b)] above, are inconsistent and do not enable the reader to gain a clear understanding about Ms Galpin's entry requirements to be enrolled as a learner with her proposed RTO for this course.
8. Further, the entry requirements described by Ms Galpin, as set out in paragraph [137] above, are different from the entry requirements prescribed under the training package. Ms Galpin does not explain in the Replacement Certificate IV TAS that her stated requirement to have a "RGR30118 Certificate III in Racing (Trackrider) RGR40118 Certificate IV Racehorse trainer", or indeed to have a "RGR30208 Certificate III in Racing (Advanced Stablehand)", is not an entry requirement stipulated in the training package for this course.
9. The training package for the RGR50118 Diploma Course stipulates a clear mandatory entry requirement as follows:

To undertake this qualification the individual must have:

• extensive skills and knowledge commensurate with RGR40118 Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) demonstrating industry-relevant experience in the care, welfare and management of horses.

1. The Tribunal will refer to the entry requirements in the paragraph above as the 'RGR50118 Diploma Entry Requirements'.
2. In Ms Galpin's Replacement Diploma TAS, Mr Galpin has described, inconsistently, the entry requirements for the RGR50118 Diploma Course in different places, specifically:[70]

(a) under the heading "Entry Requirements/Pre-requisites", it states that (emphasis added): > > To undertake this qualification the candidate will have extensive industry−relevant experience in the care, welfare and management of horses. Before commencing this qualification, candidates must be able to demonstrate that they have the appropriate skills and knowledge commensurate with the RGR40108 Certificate IV in Racing (Advanced Stablehand). > > (b) under the heading "Target Group", it states that (emphasis added):[71] > > Persons who have previous(sic) completed RGR40108 or have the appropriate skills and knowledge commensurate with RGR40108 and wish to operate independent businesses with responsibilities for quality outputs, supervising staff, coordinating groups, planning and developing strategic initiatives, and operating in a wide variety of contexts, most of which are complex and non-routine. > > (c) under the heading "Pathways Information - Entry", it refers to (emphasis added) "RGR40118 Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer)".

3. In subparagraphs [146(a) and (b)] above, Ms Galpin cites, in her Replacement Diploma TAS, a course code for a qualification which is no longer current, that is, RGR40108. In subparagraph [146(a)], Ms Galpin has also used an incorrect course name when describing the superseded qualification, that is, the course name of RGR40108 was "Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse)" and not "Certificate IV in Racing (Advanced Stablehand)". This Tribunal finds that these are errors which require correction.
4. At the "Pathways Information - Entry" section of the Replacement Diploma TAS, Ms Galpin gives an impression to the reader that they need to have attained the RGR40118 Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) qualification to enter the course. The entry requirements in the training package are that the individual must have extensive skills and knowledge "commensurate with" RGR40118 Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer), demonstrating industry-relevant experience in the care, welfare, and management of horses but they do not require a person to hold this qualification. Ms Galpin does not explain that her requirement for the prospective learner to hold this Certificate IV qualification exceeds the entry requirements under the training package.
5. This is also inconsistent with Ms Galpin's other statements, as set out in subparagraphs 139(a) and (b) above, that a prospective learner requires either a RGR40108 Certificate IV in Racing (Advanced Stablehand) qualification (putting aside for a moment, that Ms Galpin has incorrectly described the name and code of the course) or has extensive skills and knowledge which is commensurate with holding this qualification.
6. The inconsistencies between the statements of the entry requirements in these three different parts of the Replacement Diploma TAS make it unclear to the reader what Ms Galpin's entry requirements are for this course. This Tribunal finds that there are errors which require correction.
7. The Tribunal finds that the Replacement Diploma TAS reference incorrect course names and codes for the Certificate IV course, which also requires correction.
8. At the hearing, Ms Galpin endeavoured to justify why she had referred to an incorrect course code in her materials and by doing so, demonstrated that she is not capable of undertaking effective searches on the training.gov.au website. Ms Galpin asserted that on the training.gov.au website, the "RGR08 package still currently endorses the 40108 package on racing.gov". The first difficulty with this statement by Ms Galpin is that she referred to "racing.gov" which is a media racing website and which has nothing to do with the prescription of course names and codes for racing-related VET qualifications. Instead, the relevant training packages which set out such prescriptions can be found on the website "training.gov.au".
9. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if she considered it to be "okay" to deliver the superseded courses. Ms Galpin said that "according to ASQA", the answer to this question is "yes". Ms Galpin said she considered that "what's current in the RGR08 package is still my RGR4008 package and it's currently on the website as being current".[72] Similarly, Ms Galpin confirmed that it is "okay" for her to deliver RGR50108 because of what is "current on that website".[73] This is a serious misconception by Ms Galpin and demonstrates that she is not capable of running an RTO, which will be dealt with in further detail below.
10. Ms Grant gave evidence that "very simply" Ms Galpin's view, as described in the above paragraph, is "not factual". Ms Grant said that the two training products (that is, RGR40108 and RGR50108) are superseded and "can no longer be trained and assessed". Ms Grant gave evidence that "to train and assess those training products would be in contradiction to clause 1.26 of the standards but would actually further cause issues within the Act itself. I do note the training package that is currently - well current - is the RGR Racing and Breeding training package and it is at release 4.1".[74]
11. The Tribunal accepts Ms Grant's evidence. The training packages on the training.gov.au website clearly state that "RGR40108" and "RGR50108" courses are superseded. For quite a significant period of time now, those courses have been superseded by RGR40118 and RGR50118 which are the current Certificate IV and Diploma Racing (Racehorse Trainer) courses that Ms Galpin intends to deliver if her registration is restored.
12. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether it was possible that she was looking at an old version of the training package. Ms Galpin refuted this and said she was looking at what was on the training.gov.au "right now". Ms Grant disagreed and said that RTOs must deliver the "118 courses". Ms Grant said that a search of the RGR40108 course would show a "usage recommendation" as being recorded as "superseded" and a reference that the period during which the training package was current was 24 September 2008 (at 12.04pm) to 4 July 2018.[75]
13. Upon further cross-examination of Ms Galpin by Ms Dhanji, it became apparent that on 8 December 2024, Ms Galpin had lodged with the Tribunal the outdated Release 1.0 of the RGR08 training package. Ms Grant confirmed that the current release of this training package is, in fact, Release 4.0.[76] Ms Galpin did not provide any explanation in her covering email in relation to why she had sent an outdated Release 1.0 version of this document to the Tribunal in support of her application.[77] Shortly thereafter, Ms Galpin (on 24 September 2008 at 12.16pm) sent a further email to the Tribunal attaching Release 2.0 of the RGR08 training package (which the Tribunal notes is also outdated).[78]
14. At the hearing, Ms Galpin gave evidence that the Release 2.0 is the "most current release".[79] She claimed it was the most current download "of what's available to me" on training.gov.au.[80] This is factually incorrect.
15. Ms Galpin was asked by Ms Dhanji if she had heard Ms Grant give evidence at the hearing that the training package is up to its fourth iteration (that is, the fourth release). Ms Galpin answered in the affirmative. Ms Dhanji put a proposition to Ms Galpin that she would need to use the most-up-to-date version for her training organisation and asked her if she would agree with this proposition. Ms Galpin responded "absolutely" and "100 per cent".[81] Ms Galpin gave evidence as follows:

When I go to training.gov and I press on release - this is my question to ASQA because this is public. Go to the release, go to the most current release and see what document you download. I'm not saying Ms Grant's wrong. I'm saying what's advertised to the public.

16. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin to state the name of the most current training package. Ms Galpin said it was the "RGR08 breeding and racing package". Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that the name is, in fact, the "RGR racing and breeding training package" to which Ms Galpin agreed. Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that the RGR08 racing training package is the old iteration of the RGR racing and breeding training package. Ms Galpin did not accept this but instead, questioned why it was still current on "your website". Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin if she agreed that RGR08 was the old version of the training package. Again, Ms Galpin questioned why it was there. Ms Dhanji repeated her question for a third time to Ms Galpin, who responded as follows:

Because as a member of the public who wants to be a racehorse trainer, and I go on your website, and I download the most current version and it looks and it goes long the little bar, and it says 'press here', get the PDF and it says 'RGR08'.

17. Ms Galpin claimed that when she went to this package on her computer, it stated that this qualification is "current". The Tribunal does not accept Ms Galpin's evidence. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms Grant as confirmed by the records of the relevant qualifications and the recorded status of those qualifications on the training.gov.au website. Ms Galpin has demonstrated that she is incapable of making simple searches on the training.gov.au website sufficient to find up-to-date information about the current VET course names, course codes and training packages as relevant to the RGR Courses.
18. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Galpin conceded that her TASs "obviously are still in a draft form" and that she believed they could "be improved".[82] With all due respect to Ms Galpin, the Tribunal considers this to be an understatement and concludes that the Ms Galpin's Replacement TASs contain numerous errors and require significant corrections to be made.
19. In conclusion, Ms Galpin's Replacement TASs in their current form are not ready to be used to deliver the RGR Courses in a way that would achieve compliance with Clauses 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards.

Whether Ms Galpin has adequately set out the mode of delivery in the Replacement TASs

1. At the hearing, Ms Galpin confirmed that it was her intention that the RCG Courses would be delivered online and would require the completion of both:

(a) self-paced theoretical components; and

(b) practical components, to be undertaken in the learner's workplace as "on-the-job training".

1. On the second day of the hearing, Ms Dhanji referred to the RPL assessment toolkits that Ms Galpin has lodged with the Tribunal and asked her to point out whether her Replacement Certificate IV TAS "talks about" RPL assessments. Ms Galpin said she was not sure at first and then she said that it does not do so. Ms Galpin referred Ms Dhanji to the "AQTF learner questionnaire" which she said may have some questions "that involve previous qualifications". Ms Dhanji pointed out that this is not one of Ms Galpin's documents, to which Ms Galpin agreed.[83]
2. In the Second Evidence Review Report, ASQA contended that none of Ms Galpin's TASs, including the Replacement TASs, clearly set out how RPL would be incorporated. Ms Galpin's immediate response was that this is "fine" because:[84]

I don't really offer RPL but that's not advised. I do credit transfer. When we were up and running, I was very clear about both my students that unless they did the theory of the units and I could see clear evidence of the theory and the answers in the theory, it just wasn't going to be like a verbal communication between us and the RPL and the way it's structured within this, I don't believe is that suitable for my industry for someone to just come along and say, "Well, great, you're (indistinct) horse today, you're doing this, you're doing that, you're doing this, you're doing that. Great".

1. In light of her statement, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether, in the materials she will give to prospective learners or learners, she has stated that she will not be offering RPL. Ms Galpin answered "no". When asked why she had not done so, Ms Galpin replied:

RPL is part of ASQA structure, and how I approach RPL is completely relevant to my scope.

1. The Tribunal understands Ms Galpin's evidence at the hearing, as her wishing to reserve the ability to be able to undertake RPL assessments. Ms Galpin gave evidence at the hearing that she may, in fact, "do RPL".[85] This is consistent with her having taken steps previously on several occasions to develop RPL kits for the units of competency for the RGR Courses and then lodging them to ASQA, and the Tribunal, as her rectification evidence. The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin intends to reserve the ability to offer RPL assessments to learners if her registration is restored and that she has not adequately explained this in the Replacement TASs, nor has she explained in the Replacement TASs, how RPL would be incorporated into the delivery of the RGR Courses.
2. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Galpin clarified what she meant by delivering the courses online. She explained that she will use a third-party platform, Speedy Course. She also said she proposes to email course materials to students or when the documents are too large, to post them to students on a USB stick.
3. The Tribunal notes that on the Replacement Certificate IV TAS that Ms Galpin refers to delivering the RGR Certificate IV Course "via distanced education" under the heading "Student Numbers" in the table headed "Client Information".[86] Ms Galpin also refers to this qualification being "delivered via distance" in the table headed "Course Duration".[87] Under the heading "Delivery Period and Sequence" in the Replacement Certificate IV TAS, Ms Galpin stated that "Students will have the opportunity to undertake one unit of competency at a time".[88] Under the heading "Delivery mode", Ms Galpin states "The delivery mode for this qualification is via distance education. Australian Online Racing Accreditation provides all students with all training and assessment materials by email or post (USB sticks) or both".[89] In the table headed "Resources", in the row headed "RTO Resources", Ms Galpin states that "AORA provides all students with specific workbooks; log books and assessment tasks via distance either by email or post (USB sticks) or both" and in the next row headed "Outside Resources Including Workplace/Employer", there is an extensive bullet point list of additional resources required including an "approved horse property" and "access to an actual workplace or simulated environment".
4. The Replacement Diploma TAS has identical references to the mode of delivery of this qualification as explained above in relation to the Certificate IV qualification. The Tribunal finds that the Replacement TASs contains a number of references to various aspects of the mode of delivery of this course as set out above. However, the Tribunal considers that the TASs should be amended to explain that Ms Galpin is proposing to use the platform Speedy Course when delivering the course and it should also explain how RPL would be incorporated in the delivery of the course.

Statements in Ms Galpin's TASs about the course duration and amount of training to be provided when delivering the RGR Courses

1. In each of the AQF specifications, there is a table entitled "Certificate IV qualification type descriptor" with a row which is entitled "Volume of learning".
2. As relevant to this application:

(a) for a Certificate IV-level qualification, the volume of learning is stated in the AQF as follows: > > The volume of learning of a Certificate IV is typically 0.5 - 2 years. There may be variations between short duration specialist qualifications that build on knowledge and skills already acquired and longer duration qualifications that are designed as entry level requirements for work. > > (b) for a Diploma-level qualification, the volume of learning is stated in the AQF as follows: > > The volume of learning of a Diploma is typically 1 - 2 years.

3. The AQF does not stipulate any minimum "volume of learning" or course duration, which a learner must complete to gain a certain level of qualification.
4. The Tribunal notes that ASQA's User Guide state as follows (emphasis added):[90]

The AQF 'volume of learning' range is considered to be a starting point for RTOs determining the 'amount of training' required to deliver a particular qualification. > > In a competency-based training environment, which is centred on demonstrated competence against industry-defined standards of performance rather than strict course durations, students aren't required to study for a specified number of weeks or months. Competency-based training is the concept that individuals learn at different rates as well as through different modes and different environments and that the skills and knowledge that a student has acquired previously are able to be formally recognised. > > However, your RTO must still be able to identify and explain any significant variations from the time periods described in the AQF. Your decisions in relation to course duration must ensure that the integrity of the qualification outcomes is maintained. > > If a course is structured so as to be completed in a shorter time period than that described in the AQF, you will need to clearly describe, using a rationale based on the needs of students and their previous skills and knowledge, how a specific student cohort: > > • has the characteristics to achieve the required rigour and depth of training > > • can meet all of the competency requirements in a shorter timeframe. > > Your description must take into account the need to allow students to reflect on and absorb the knowledge, to practise the skills in different contexts and to learn to apply the skills and knowledge in the varied environments that the 'real world' offers before being assessed.

5. Notably, the Companion RGR Implementation Guide specifically addresses the topic of the "amount of training and volume of learning" as follows (footnotes omitted)(emphasis added):[91]

Amount of training and volume of learning > > RTOs must create a training and assessment strategy for delivery of AQF qualifications that reflects the complexity required of that qualification. An essential consideration in the training and assessment strategy is to ensure the amount of training provided is sufficient so that the learner can: > > • meet the requirements of each qualification > > • gain the skills and knowledge specified in the units of competency. > > The amount of training involves all the formal learning activities provided to a learner, for example, classes, tutorials, field-work, lectures, online or self-paced study, as well as workplace learning. > > Training should take into account the need to allow learners to reflect on and absorb the knowledge, to practise the skills in different contexts and to learn to apply the skills and knowledge in the varied environments that the 'real world' offers before being assessed. > > AQF qualifications differ in terms of their complexity. The complexity of a qualification is defined by: > > • the breadth and depth of the knowledge > > • skills required > > • application of knowledge and skills, and > > • the AQF volume of learning. > > The AQF volume of learning describes how long a learner, without any competencies identified in the qualification, would normally take to develop all the required skills and knowledge at that qualification level. The volume of learning includes all teaching, learning and assessment activities that are undertaken by the typical student to achieve the learning outcomes of the particular qualification. > > When might shorter courses be appropriate? > > A shorter course may be appropriate if, for example, the student cohort comprises experienced workers who already have most of the required skills and knowledge. Because these students have previous relevant experience, it may be appropriate to deliver and assess the program over a shorter period. > > Assessment requirements must still be met in such programs, although some assessment may be undertaken by recognising existing skills and knowledge. Be aware that in some cases where students have been employed long-term in an industry, their range of skills and knowledge may be narrow. They may not have the capacity to fully demonstrate these in a broader context or in different environments. > > Where the student cohort consists of new entrants or inexperienced workers, before assessment you must give them the opportunity to fully absorb the required knowledge, and to develop skills over time in the different contexts they would experience in the workplace. This may require a longer timeframe than for those students with significant industry experience. > > For further guidance on how to determine the amount of training, please refer to ASQA's fact sheet on amount of training.

6. The Tribunal notes that on ASQA's website, it provides guidance about "Determining appropriate training and course duration" and the "amount of training" for a qualification to be delivered by an RTO.[92] ASQA states (emphasis added):[93]

The amount of training must be sufficient to allow students to gain the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the requirements of the training product. You should have a detailed schedule and outline of the activities and expected timeframes to complete the activities. The amount of training allocated in your training and assessment strategy is determined by: > > 1. the student cohort; > > 2. the training product, > > 3. the mode(s) of delivery.

7. In determining the amount of training, ASQA states on its website as follows (emphasis added):[94]

There is no single formula to determine amount of training. Professional judgement and a reasoned approach will provide rationale for your decision. > > Once you have considered the characteristics and needs of your student cohort, the requirements and complexity of the training product and the possible mode(s) of delivery, you can determine an appropriate amount of training (see summary table below). > > Starting with the relevant volume of learning indicator for the training product, you can adjust for your circumstances and estimate how long it will take to deliver training for each unit or cluster of units so that students are comfortable, prepared and ready to undertake assessment.

8. On ASQA's website it prompts RTOs to document and provide rationale for determining and adjusting the amount of training for a learner on a course to be delivered by it. Specifically, ASQA states as follows (emphasis added):

Documenting and adjusting the amount of training > > Before delivery - developing your TAS > > You must develop a training and assessment strategy (TAS) for each training product you are registered to deliver. This may comprise multiple documents; however, there must be consistency between these documents so that the overall strategy is clearly described. Your rationale needs to be clearly outlined, documented and supported by evidence. > > Amount of training should be determined during the design stage of a TAS, prior to delivery. > > Whatever format your TAS takes, the amount of training and its rationale must be recorded. If you use different delivery modes or target different student cohorts, you must have a considered amount of training and rationale for each. Regardless of the method you choose, your decision must be based on a reasoned, logical, evidence-based analysis and detail your rationale to the unit level. > > Conducting a training needs analysis to develop a TAS for different student cohorts is considered best practice. Analysis should document how allocation of resources and the provision of support services meets students' needs. Where amount of training is substantially reduced, a clear rationale is required to justify the decision. > > Regular industry consultation can help determine:

• expectations of graduates
• how much time it may take for a student cohort to acquire certain skills and knowledge requirements, and
• appropriate mode(s) of delivery.

Effective engagement will help you identify and consistently implement a suitable amount of training, as well as help determine what resources and supports should be in place. > > Adjusting your TAS during training > > A TAS is a live document which should be adjusted through the span of training to reflect students' needs. Clause 2.2 of the Standards requires systematic monitoring of training and assessment practices and outcomes to ensure quality training and assessment. > > Monitoring, evaluation, and data collection will inform decision-making in adjusting TAS during and after delivery, so that course duration and the amount of training effectively meets students' needs. Data collected about students' experiences can also be used to continually refine and justify your decision. > > Any adjustments made to accommodate the needs of the student cohort should be documented. Should any significant changes be made to the duration or previously agreed upon services, students must be advised as soon as practicable as stated in clause 5.4 of the Standards. > > What we expect to see > > You must be able to demonstrate how you have determined an appropriate amount of training for each training product. > > Your TAS must clearly document:

• your rationale for determining the amount of training, including any industry consultation
• how you've considered the student cohort, training product and mode(s) of delivery to determine and adjust your amount of training
• how your amount of training, and learning and physical resources gives students sufficient time to learn, practice and consolidate the required skills and knowledge before assessment
• how you used your amount of training determination to inform an appropriate course duration
• your rationale for any significant variation from the volume of learning range described in the Australian Qualifications Framework.

• you systematically evaluate your TAS and use the outcomes of these evaluations to continually improve your internal systems, strategies and practices
• your strategies are consistent with any marketing, advertising and other materials you provide to prospective students
• you do not deliver or market unrealistically short courses which compromise the depth and quality of education offered to students.

1. ASQA contends that Ms Galpin's TASs do not clearly, or consistently, set out the duration of the courses or the amounts of training.
2. In the Replacement Certificate IV TAS, the course duration is described (under the heading "Course Duration") as follows:[95]

According to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) a Certificate IV qualification would normally take between 0.5 to 2 years. As this qualification is delivered via distance AORA has determined that it is acceptable for students to exceed the AQF stated timeframe due to the nature of the industry and tendency for students to travel with their workplace/employer.

3. In the Replacement Diploma TAS, the course duration is described (under the heading "Course Duration") as follows:[96]

According to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) a Diploma level qualification would normally take between 1 and 2 years. As this qualification is delivered via distance AORA has determined that it is acceptable for students to exceed the AQF stated timeframe due to the nature of the industry and tendency for students to travel with their workplace/employer.

4. On the first day of the hearing, Ms Galpin was asked by Ms Dhanji how many hours it would take for her students to complete the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course and the RGR50118 Diploma Course. Her evidence in respect to both courses, was that it would take "something like 2,400 hours".[97] Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the Replacement Certificate TAS, where it stated that the total number of hours to undertake all units in the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course is only 610 hours.[98]
5. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin how the reference to 610 hours in the TAS, "fit with" her earlier evidence that it would take 2,400 hours for a learner to complete the course. Ms Galpin responded as follows:[99]

Well, there's a gap between maybe 1,600 and 2,000 hours because, you know, some students will achieve things quicker than others, so there's an allocation of a length of time, which would be expected to have an achievement. That 610 is for the theoretical points of what they are allocated as how many hours that it would take a student. Some students can do it very quickly, but on the whole people within the racing industry aren't academics, so the allocation of 40 hours or 20 hours or even 100 hours, as there could be a little bit more lengthy document for them to read or understand or do their assessment. So that was the allocation of those hours. On top of that 610 hours there has to be on-the-job training.

6. Ms Galpin was asked to point to where it was explained to learners in the Replacement Certificate IV TAS, that there will be a component of "on-the-job training", on top of the 610 hours referred to in the table headed "Units of Competency". Ms Galpin said that there was a Log Book as well, however, this did not answer Ms Dhanji's question. Ms Galpin was re-directed to the Replacement Certificate IV TAS and asked the question again. Ms Galpin referred to the section in this TAS about "reasonable adjustments"[100] and specifically, the following statement: "Ensure the requirements of the training package documentation including the performance criteria, regard to the knowledge and the skills, are all assessment evidence requirements" and she remarked that it "can't just be theory".[101] When Ms Galpin was asked a third time where it was explained in this document that the hours in the table are references only to theoretical hours and that the student was required to engage in a certain amount of on-the-job training and if so, how many hours, Ms Galpin answered, "Well, I'm not exactly sure".[102]
7. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the statement in the Replacement Certificate IV TAS about course duration as reproduced above in paragraph [181] above. At the hearing, Ms Galpin said that the course duration would be dependent on the student and that that some people can "do things very quickly". She said her student, BF, was an example of such a person. Ms Galpin confirmed that the range of the course duration would be between 0.5 and 2 years, as stated in this TAS.
8. The Tribunal considers that Ms Galpin's Replacement TASs do not adequately make it clear to the learner or prospective learner that they must undertake both a theoretical component of training and a practical/on-the-job component of training in their workplace, except for a non-specific references to workplace training in the section of the document describing external resources. The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin does not stipulate in her Replacement TASs in any precise terms what she had determined the course duration or the amount to training will be. Ms Galpin has provided some specification of the number of hours for each unit by specifying them in the table entitled "Delivery Period and Sequence" in the row headed "Units of competency". As highlighted by ASQA, the Replacement TASs do not qualify those individual numbers (or indeed, the total number of hours), by indicating that they refer to the number of hours required to undertake only the theoretical component of the training, as suggested by Ms Galpin at the hearing. A person reading this document, would reasonably be led to the impression that the figures in this part of the table are the total number of hours of training (both theoretical and/or practical) to be undertaken for each unit.
9. The Replacement Certificate IV TAS states that a total of 610 hours is to be undertaken. The Replacement Diploma TAS states that a total of 490 hours is to be undertaken. This does not line up with Ms Galpin's evidence that it is her intention that the learner is to undertake 2,400 hours of training in total for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course and the RGR50118 Diploma Course.
10. The Tribunal also notes that there are no explanations provided by Ms Galpin in her Replacement TASs as to the matters set out on ASQA's website which ASQA considers (and with which the Tribunal agrees) should be clearly documented in an RTO's TAS. Specifically, in the Replacement TASs Ms Galpin has not:

(a) explained Ms Galpin's rationale for determining the amount of training, including any industry consultation; > > (b) how Ms Galpin has considered the student cohort, training product and mode(s) of delivery to determine and adjust the amount of training; and > > (c) how Ms Galpin has used the "amount of training" determination to inform an appropriate course duration.

11. The Tribunal concludes that the information in the Replacement TASs about the course duration and the amount of training is currently unclear, inconsistently described and requires significant supplementation and amendment.

Conclusion in relation to Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2)

1. The Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards because Ms Galpin's Replacement Certificate IV TAS contains significant errors. Specifically, this TAS lists 15 units of competency in the delivery, assessment, and validation sections of this TAS, which are not current core or elective units of competency for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course as prescribed by the relevant training package as described above.
2. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clauses 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards because Ms Galpin's Replacement Diploma TAS contains significant errors. Specifically, this TAS lists 12 units of competency in the delivery, assessment, and validation sections of this TAS, which are not current core or elective units of competency for the RGR50118 Diploma Course as prescribed by the relevant training package as described above.
3. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards because she has inconsistently listed the units of competency in different places of her Replacement TASs, which is bound to cause confusion, as described above.
4. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards because Ms Galpin's stated entry requirements in her Replacement TASs are described inconsistently, are unclear and refer to incorrect course names and codes as described above.
5. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards because the Replacement TASs do not adequately explain that Ms Galpin is proposing to use the platform Speedy Course when delivering the RGR Courses, or how RPL will be incorporated into the delivery of those courses as described above.
6. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) of the Standards because the Tribunal concludes that the information in the Replacement TASs about the course duration and the amount of training, is currently unclear, does not align with Ms Galpin's stated intentions at the hearing in respect of the volume of learning for the RGR Courses, and requires significant supplementation and amendment as described above.

1. Subclause 1.8 of the Standards is reproduced above in paragraph [36]. It requires an RTO to implement an assessment system that ensures that assessment (including RPL) complies with the assessment requirements of the relevant training package and is conducted in accordance with the Principles of Assessment in Table 1.8-1 and the Rules of Evidence 1.8-2 (also reproduced in paragraph [36] above).
2. ASQA contends that subclause 1.8 is central to an RTO's operations and that a "consistent inability" of an RTO to comply with this subclause, indicates "serious ongoing failures in an RTO's ability to provide high quality VET" or to demonstrate that it has "adequate self-assurance systems". The Tribunal agrees with and accepts this broad contention.
3. When Ms Galpin was directed to lodge her key documents with the Tribunal in preparation for the substantive hearing of this matter, the Tribunal notes that she did not lodge any of her proposed assessment materials or tools for the RGR Courses, or a reasonable sample of them. This omission was identified at the substantive hearing and ASQA called for production of those documents during the cross-examination of Ms Galpin. The Tribunal made directions for the production of those materials for the 16 units that Ms Galpin proposes to deliver to learners when undertaking the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course. It is a requirement of the training package for this course that a learner complete seven core units and nine elective units (see paragraph [93] above). As described below, Ms Galpin did not comply with this direction and the production of her assessment materials was incomplete and also erroneous in that she provided assessment materials for units not forming part of this course or which have been superseded and replaced by other current units.

Whether Ms Galpin has in place applicable and adequate primary assessment tools for the units of competency she is proposing to deliver

1. In November 2023, ASQA requested that Ms Galpin provide it with some further sample primary assessment tools,[103] for its review.[104] On 5 December 2023, Ms Galpin provided assessment tools for four units which were not included in the list of units set out in the CAQA TASs, which Ms Galpin was relying upon at the time.
2. In the Second Evidence Review Report, ASQA stated that it was unclear why Ms Galpin had chosen to provide assessment tools for those units.[105] Ms Galpin did the same, again, by providing a further assessment tool on 30 August 2024 in relation to another unit of competency. ASQA stated it was unclear why she had done so, as her TAS at that time, indicated that she did not intend to deliver that particular unit of study.[106]
3. The Tribunal had a similar experience when seeking to adduce a set of Ms Galpin's key assessment materials so it could assess whether she had complied with Clause 1.8. On the second day of the hearing, Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin if she had all of the learner resources and assessor resources, for each of the units of competency that she is intending to deliver in respect of the RGR Course. Ms Galpin said she believed so. A moment later, Ms Galpin became more certain about this, and said that she did so.
4. Ms Dhanji pointed out to Ms Galpin that she had not, in fact, produced those documents to the Tribunal. Ms Galpin said she had produced those materials to ASQA and that "the whole package was found fully competent in 2015, which is huge".[107] Ms Galpin said she had not produced them for this hearing (that is, for the hearing which took place in December 2024), because she said she was told to contain the documents down to a small, select bundle.[108] The Tribunal's direction in August 2023 was that the parties were to lodge a set of its "key documents" that they each intended to reply upon.
5. Following an enquiry by the Tribunal, Ms Galpin gave evidence at the substantive hearing that she believed that she had, in "full and final form", the following three resources in respect of the 16 units of competency in respect of the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course:[109]

(a) a learner guide (one for each of the 16 units); > > (a) the assessment pack (one for each of the 16 units); and > > (b) a logbook (which she said was the same single logbook for all 16 units).

6. Ms Dhanji called for production of those 33 documents.[110] Ms Galpin confirmed that those documents were "on her computer" (which was at her home) and that it amounted to a "huge amount of material". Ms Galpin claimed that those documents had all been tendered to the AAT. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin, in light of the fact that those documents are in existence (according to Ms Galpin's evidence), if there was any reason why she could not access those documents on her computer that evening (that is, on 5 December 2024) and to lodge them using the Tribunal's online lodgement system.[111] When Ms Galpin was asked by the Tribunal if she was computer literate, she answered that she is "becoming" computer literate. The Tribunal's experience when dealing with Ms Galpin in this proceeding has been that she has very basic level of competency when it comes to using technology and her computer. She was frequently assisted by ASQA throughout the course of this proceeding, to undertake simple computer-based tasks. The Tribunal decided to give Ms Galpin additional time to find and lodge those materials (even though it was a task that could have been completed quickly because Ms Galpin was being directed to produce documents already in existence). On 6 December 2024, the Tribunal directed that Ms Galpin collate these 33 documents, and to lodge them with the Tribunal by 11 December 2024.
7. In Ms Galpin's Third HTB, lodged on 11 December 2024, only some of the 33 documents (as referred to in paragraph [204] above) were lodged with the Tribunal.
8. Of relevance to Clause 1.8, Ms Galpin was directed to lodge 16 assessor packs, one for each of the prescribed core and elective units she is proposing to deliver if her registration is restored to deliver the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course. Ms Galpin failed to do so and instead she produced assessment materials for four units only, specifically:

(a) "Assessor Packs" for: > > > (i) RGRPSH505 "Select Horses for Racing" (Document 29); > > > > (ii) BSBWHS301 "Maintain Workplace Safety" (learner assessor pack and assessor assessment pack - Documents 74 and 75); and > > > > (iii) assessor assessment pack and learner assessment pack for BSBWHS401 "Implement and Monitor WHS policies, procedures and programs to meet legislative requirements" (Documents 86/87); and > > (b) a consolidated "Learner Guide, Workbook and Assessment Materials" for: > > > (i) RGRPSH421A "Operate horse racing training business".[112]

9. Notably, one of those units is not a prescribed unit for this particular course (that is, BSBWHS401 "Implement and Monitor WHS policies, procedures and programs to meet legislative requirements"). Another one of those units has been superseded, that is RGRPSH421A, which was superseded by unit RGRPSH421 in about 2018.
10. The Tribunal notes that three of the assessor packs produced by Ms Galpin, as referred to in subparagraphs [207(a)], were purchased by her after the Tribunal had made its direction to produce her assessment materials for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course to the Tribunal. Ms Galpin had purchased them from a third party contractor on 11 December 2024, that is, the same day they were due to be lodged with this Tribunal. They were not in Ms Galpin's possession at the time she gave evidence at the hearing that she had, or she believed that she had, the assessment materials prepared and ready for 16 units to be delivered for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course. With respect, this can be fairly described as a "last ditch" attempt by Ms Galpin to put materials before the Tribunal in hope they might provide satisfaction that Ms Galpin has complied with Clause 1.8. This does not instil confidence in the Tribunal that Ms Galpin's assessment materials and systems are prepared and ready to go in delivering the RGR Courses in a manner which is compliant with Clause 1.8 of the Standards. Rather, the Tribunal finds this is not the case and that Ms Galpin's evidence about this given at the hearing on 6 December 2024, was incorrect.
11. Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that the Replacement TASs contained an assessment table which included superseded units of competency for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course.[113] Ms Galpin said that this was "just an example" and that there was a full list of units in this TAS on pages 202 and 203. Ms Dhanji put a proposition to Ms Galpin that all of the units which were listed, had been superseded. Ms Galpin responded, "And we're not disagreeing with that".[114] Ms Galpin said, again, that this was an "example". The Tribunal put to Ms Galpin that this table was headed "Delivery mode units of competency". Ms Galpin replied, "It's an example and I went over this the other day". The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin what she meant by this to which she gave the following evidence:[115]

Well, I should have wrote the words, 'For example, you may have completed at some time in your education participate' - say, 'That we'll just go to RGRPSH417, we'll take the A off it, but because this is an example for you, you may have done it prior to this new package. But it's still equivalent for me to assess that, that you've done it.' So it's a very useful tool.

12. The Tribunal does not accept that Ms Galpin's error in the assessment table forming part of the Replacement TASs, as identified by ASQA, can be adequately explained by Ms Galpin's suggestion that that the superseded units were placed there "as an example". As indicated above when addressing Ms Galpin's Replacement TASs, the Tribunal considers this explanation by Ms Galpin to be incoherent and the Tribunal does not accept it. Instead, the Tribunal considers that it was erroneous for Ms Galpin to have listed superseded units in this table of the Replacement TASs because the heading of the table clearly states, "delivery mode".
13. The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin has included the superseded units in this table because she is unable to keep abreast of which units are currently prescribed units of competency in the RGR Courses she would like to deliver. For this reason, the Tribunal is satisfied that another reason why Ms Galpin is non-compliant with clause 1.8 is that according to the Replacement TASs, Ms Galpin is proposing to deliver and undertake an assessment of units of competency when delivering the RGR Courses, which are not currently included in those courses (as prescribed by the training packages for those courses). The Tribunal considers that this is a major defect in Ms Galpin's assessment systems.
14. Ms Galpin accepted on the last day of the hearing that it is important for a student to know what units of competency she will deliver when delivering a course.[116] Ms Galpin accepted that she would need to clarify this.[117] However, the Tribunal notes that Ms Galpin has had numerous opportunities to make those adjustments and she had failed to produce evidence of a correct assessment system at the substantive hearing of this matter. If left to her own devices, if Ms Galpin (or her trainers and assessors) had followed her own Replacement TASs, she would have assessed the wrong units for the RGR Courses.
15. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that she had provided assessment tools to ASQA for units which were not listed in her TASs. Ms Galpin made a response to this proposition which did not address the point directly and displayed a lack of understanding about what was being put to her. Ultimately, Ms Galpin confirmed that she did not think it was "okay" if the unit referred to was an old unit, even if it was a unit which is "equivalent to" the new unit. Ms Galpin told the Tribunal, "we're upgrading". The Tribunal considers that it is now too late for Ms Galpin to be "upgrading". She has had plenty of opportunities to do so. At the substantive hearing in December 2024 or by 11 December 2024, Ms Galpin was unable to produce TASs which list the correct units to be assessed and nor was she able to produce a set of adequate assessment packs for each of the 16 units she proposes to deliver for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course if her registration was restored.
16. As things stand, the Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin was unable to demonstrate that her assessor packs or assessment systems are correct, complete, and ready to deliver the RGR Courses.

Whether Ms Galpin's assessment materials provide accurate or adequate benchmarking

1. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that she has provided assessment materials which do not provide accurate or adequate benchmarking to illustrate that Ms Galpin has complied with subclause 1.8 of the Standards. Ms Galpin disagreed.[118] When asked at the hearing, Ms Galpin could not say what her understanding was of the requirements of an RTO under subclause 1.8, and so this was read out to Ms Galpin.[119] Ms Dhanji referred specifically to the requirement for "reliability" as a principle of assessment and that "Evidence presented for assessment is consistently [interpreted] and assessment results are comparable, irrespective of the assessor conducting the assessment".[120]
2. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the assessor pack that Ms Galpin had submitted for the unit RGRPSH505 "Select horses for racing".[121] Ms Galpin said that this was a document "that was half done by CCI". Ms Galpin said she had asked Anna Haranas to stop working on this document but she had brought it to the attention of the Tribunal to show how much effort she had made in the last 12 months.[122]
3. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the third row of the table on page 584 of Ms Galpin's Third HTB comprising an "Assessment Task 3: Workplace Tasks". In this document, the learner is asked the following question:

Write an evaluation of this horse's pedigree and include the following information:

• Interpretation of this horse's pedigree information
• Evaluation of the racing breeding theory against the pedigree of this horse
• Identification of the features of prominent racing lines and how this relates to this horse.

1. In the second column in this row, guidance is provided to the assessor about the answer to this question. It states as follows:

Answers may vary. Student must include the following criteria: > > An evaluation of the horse's pedigree including the following information:

• Interpretation of this horse's pedigree information
• Evaluation of the racing breeding theory against the pedigree of this horse
• Identification of the features of prominent racing lines and how this relates to this horse.

Example answer: > > My evaluation of this horse's pedigree is...

1. This is a reproduction of the entire answer/guidance provided. Notably, the example answer is incomplete and contains no substantive example answer.
2. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin whether the information provided under the sentence "Student must include the following criteria" is identical to the information provided in the question contained in the first column in this row. Ms Galpin responded to this as follows:

MS GALPIN: I don't have a problem with knowing that. And that document wasn't done by me. So it was - can we move on? > > MS DHANJI: Well, I'm going to ask you a question, Ms Galpin. Would you agree that this bench marking doesn't assist an assessor to understand what a student should write in the answer? > > MS GALPIN: 100 per cent. I asked Anna Haranas to stop. But she's highly qualified to do all this stuff. But where she was getting the answers from was Google. And we had an issue with this in the arbitration, so you're actually going over some work that's in arbitration again. > > MS DHANJI: Could I ask - - - > > MS GALPIN: You'll see that it's blue. There's a lot of red on it. She didn't even bring into the fact that we always need a vet assessment, it has to be a registered pedigree with a stud book. There's a lot of things there that I don't - - - > > SENIOR MEMBER: So since these were - when did Anna Haranas finish preparing - when did you tell her to stop working on the documents? It doesn't have to be exact just roughly. > > MS GALPIN: Around 2023. > > SENIOR MEMBER: When 2023? So since then, what have you done to fill in the gaps to be ready for this hearing?

3. Ms Galpin answered that she had a new document which set out the answers. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to take her to that document. Ms Galpin was unable to do so at that point in the hearing. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to specify the page number before the end of the hearing. Then, Ms Galpin told the Tribunal that she had not, in fact, re-done this particular document and that there was no new version of it. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin why she had not created a new version of this document setting out the matters upon which the evaluation is to take place. Ms Galpin confirmed she had not done so and she did not proffer a reason for this.[123]
4. Ms Galpin was invited to make submissions about why the Tribunal should be persuaded that her assessment documents are where they need to be in order to comply with subclause 1.8 in light of the above assertion by ASQA. Ms Galpin made the following oral submission (emphasis added):

The compliance with ASQA is a very unique package, which is the RGO8 package, and trying to find people who are relevant to understand ASQA requirements and I don't believe that if you take the expertise of Anna Haranas lightly, she's highly qualified, and so is Sukh Sandhu, Michelle Newman and RTO materials and the people that I've dealt with in Sydney. I'm dealing with a unique package that was found to be compliant, but then was found not to be compliant, which is still the 2015 package. So I believe that if instead of spending the $200,000 plus on all my court issues, we actually had found somebody who could have worked within the grounds of the RGO package with me, we could have achieved better results. We're not in a position, fundamentally, this is a non-supported package, is what I'm trying to - I've been trying to convey that to you. That I've had to develop all of this from the grounds up. And I think that our package, being my package, does convey relevant material that is needed within my industry and that my assessment is adequate.

5. The Tribunal does not consider the RGR40118 or RGR50118 to be an "unsupported package" as Ms Galpin puts it. The reason for this is that the relevant training packages include links to the comprehensive 80-page Companion User Guide: Safety in Equine Training and the comprehensive 108-page Companion RGR Implementation Guide. Whether or not there exist "off-the-shelf products" comprising assessment materials for some or all of the units of the RGR Courses, is irrelevant. The Tribunal considers that it is the responsibility of Ms Galpin, as the training organisation, to possess adequate and complete assessment materials and accurate assessment systems. The Tribunal considers that it is reasonable to expect that Ms Galpin's proposed RTO has access to personnel who have the necessary skills, experience, and knowledge (be that herself or other persons employed or engaged by her), to use the information in the above Companion Guides, as well as ASQA's Users' Guide and the relevant training packages, to inform and develop and assessment system and assessment materials for the units of competency for the RGR Courses which Ms Galpin is proposing to deliver. The Tribunal also considers it is reasonable to expect that such assessment systems and materials are in final form in readiness to be used to assess the units of competency for the RGR Courses, should Ms Galpin's registration be restored as a consequence of the outcome of this review application. As evident from the above, this is not the case.
6. As things stand, Ms Galpin's assessment materials are incomplete and inaccurate for the reasons set out above. The Tribunal finds that those materials will not achieve accurate or adequate benchmarking by Ms Galpin when conducting assessments of the prescribed units of competency when delivering the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course.

Whether the Assessor Assessment Packs purchased by Ms Galpin have been sufficiently contextualised

1. ASQA contends that Ms Galpin's assessment materials lodged by her on 11 December 2024 have not been "sufficiently contextualised". Ms Galpin said she does not agree with ASQA in this regard.
2. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to her "Assessor Assessment Pack" for unit BSBWHS301 "Maintain Workplace Safety".[124] The Tribunal notes the brand showing at the top of this document is "precision group" and that on the second page of this document, that copyright belongs to Precision Group (Australia) Pty Ltd based in Ferny Grove, Queensland.[125] Ms Galpin said that this document was "supplied by a different supplier" and that it was not one of her documents.[126] However, Ms Galpin had produced this document when directed by the Tribunal to produce her assessment materials for the 16 units she is proposing to deliver for this course. There are no other alternative assessments materials for this unit BSBWHS301 "Maintain Workplace Safety" before this Tribunal.
3. Ms Galpin agreed that unit BSBWHS301 was a core unit of competency in the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course. She agreed this unit is listed in her Replacement Certificate IV TAS.
4. Ms Galpin agreed that she had purchased this Assessor Assessment Pack on 11 December 2024 (that is, between the second and last day of the hearing of this matter). Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that before 11 December 2024 that Ms Galpin did not have the Assessor Assessment Pack for this unit of competency. Ms Galpin claimed that she did have it and "It's just that I wanted the latest updated version" and then she remarked that it was not expensive.
5. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin if she had reviewed this assessor pack to which Ms Galpin confirmed that she has "had a look though it".[127] Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin whether she considers that the pack required any updating or changes before it could be used. Ms Galpin responded as follows:

MS GALPIN: They actually ask you not to update - contextualise the main structure of the document. There, somewhere in the very beginning, where I could pop my RTO details in there, but considering that I'm not actually operating today, I didn't do it. > > MS DHANJI: You didn't do it? > > MS GALPIN: No. There's a gap at the very front of the document for me to put 'Australian Online Racing Accreditation RTO for 05/21', my name, my address. But it actually asks you in that document not to go changing it too much because you'll - you could make it not compliant, so it's a respectful agreement.

6. The Tribunal notes that on page 78 of this Assessor Assessment Pack,[128] the following recommendation is made by the author of this document:

Contextualisation of Assessments by RTOs > > Precision Group recommends to all RTOs that they contextualise with additional tasks to suit particular industry requirements and specific organisational requirements. Contextualisation must retain the integrity of the assessment and the outcome of the unit of competency.

7. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to page 72 of the Assessor Assessment Pack setting out the "Steps for Assessors" and instructs assessors to do the following:[129]

Prepare your Tasks to contextualise the Assessment to meet the needs of the industry for which you are providing the training. You may prefer to print these and include them with this Assessment. In the Assessor Assessment Pack Recording section, note your additional Tasks and mapping under the Context Detail heading, to enable you to record the Learner Assessment results for the contextualised Tasks.

8. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin whether this instruction required Ms Galpin to contextualise the assessment. Ms Galpin said that "her industry" has a "very complex document" called "Stable Safe", which she said is not part of ASQA's requirements. Ms Galpin said that "This is a basic unit for workplace safety across the board, so contextualising the document is - I would prefer to supplement it with Stable Safe than try and mesh the two documents together."
9. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin if she had contextualised the Assessor Assessment Pack using the Stable Safe document. Ms Galpin answered "No" and that "Application would not be fit for purpose". The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin what she meant by that statement. Ms Galpin clarified that she meant that this document could be applied without contextualising it. She said she is not prepared to contextualise it, and that she is prepared to deliver it on its own standing as a workplace safety document.[130]
10. The Tribunal considers that Ms Galpin's refusal to amend this assessor assessment pack is unfortunate. If the pack is left in its current generic state, apart from adding Ms Galpin's training organisations name to it, it will be incomplete and inadequate. The Tribunal does not accept that Ms Galpin's approach of using this assessor assessment pack alongside the Stable Safe publication, as a standalone document, is sufficient. The author of the assessor assessment pack has specifically recommended to the training organisation to proceed to contextualise it "with additional tasks to suit particular industry requirements and specific organisational requirements". In the Assessor Assessment Pack Recording section, the author prompts that the training organisation note down their additional Tasks and mapping under the Context Detail heading, to enable them to record the Learner Assessment results for the contextualised Tasks. Ms Galpin has not taken either of those recommended steps, which she could have done so based on her own knowledge, skills and experience and/or based on the information in the Stable Safe publication she referred to at the hearing.
11. The Tribunal finds that the assessor packs purchased by Ms Galpin on 11 December 2024 and lodged with the Tribunal have not been contextualised and are not currently complete and adequate assessment materials for this unit, in the context of Ms Galpin delivering the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course.

Whether Ms Galpin's assessment tools refer to incorrect and outdated criteria and information

1. ASQA contended that Ms Galpin's assessment tools refer to incorrect and outdated criteria and information. Ms Galpin refuted that this was the case.
2. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to a document which had been lodged with the Tribunal on 11 December 2024 entitled "Australian Online Racing Accreditation A.O.R.A. - Learner Guide, Workbook and Assessment Materials for the unit of competency RGRPSH421A "Operate horse racing training business" for the Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer)".[131] Before Ms Dhanji could ask her question, Ms Galpin interjected with the following remark about this document:[132]

That's actually - my apologies. There should be a document which is '429F', and when I was doing some uploading, I was having a problem with it going alphabetical every time I uploaded, because I unpacked a large, compressed file. I did work very hard on it. That is not my current document, because it actually says '221A', and if it was the current document, it wouldn't have an 'A' on it.

3. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to identify the current version in the set of documents she had lodged on 11 December 2024. Ms Galpin said she was unable to do so. Ms Galpin explained:

I uploaded a very, very large amount of files. I do apologise for that. So three emails went over from my email to the next email to double-check that you were getting the documents. Google was continually alphabetically ordering them, and I was double-checking as much as I could, so I did the best I could given the timeframe.

4. On the last day of the hearing, the Tribunal gave Ms Galpin a final opportunity to provide the current version of the learner guide for this unit. She was unable to do so and it led to the following exchange between Ms Galpin and the Tribunal:

MS GALPIN: I can't deliver it to you without going home into my office, so once again, I apologise. > > SENIOR MEMBER: And can I just put this to you, just to give an opportunity to you to respond, how can the tribunal be confident that you're going to give the students correct versions of your different documents? How can I be confident about that if you can't do that to the tribunal? > > MS GALPIN: I unpacked a very large file, gave you, in a small window, an awful lot of documents. I don't believe that any student would get that amount of material overnight. They get one document, one version, so it would be fairly simple for me to know exactly what I was telling them and what I was getting them. So it's up to you whether you're confident or not. I just give one document. Big difference between that and 126 of them.

5. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. Ms Galpin was directed to lodge the assessment packs for the 16 units of competency that she was proposing to deliver. There is no reason why Ms Galpin was unable to retrieve and lodge those packs within the time frame provided to her, as well as the 16 learner guides and the one training logbook.
6. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the "performance criteria" listed in the consolidated Learner Guide, Workbook and Assessment Materials for unit GRGPSH421A "Operate horse racing training business" and asked Ms Galpin whether the listed criteria were current. Ms Galpin answered "No" and she said there would need to be "some differences" but was unable to say what they were when asked to do so. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to page 4 of this same document and specifically, the inclusion of a website link to http://www.racingaustralia.horse/FreeServices/RulesOfRacing.aspx.[\[133\]](#fn133) Again, Ms Galpin interjected and said that there is a different link now, because it would be "Racing Australia" and not "Australian Racing". The link provided in the document is a link to the www.racingaustralia.horse website which is the website for Racing Australia.
7. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to a reference to the Rules of Racing and specifically, a reference in this document to rule "AR. 80C." under the heading "Raceday Duties". Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin whether this was the relevant rule under the Rules of Racing which must be adhered to. Mr Galpin answered "Absolutely". Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that there is no rule AR. 80C in the Australian Rules of Racing. Ms Galpin responded that they may have been amended but she maintained that there is a "very similar rule". The Tribunal enquired of Ms Galpin is she was aware of what was contained in the racing rules to which she said that it was quite complicated, and she "is aware", but "is not a steward".[134] Ms Galpin said she would not be "able to rattle them off...".
8. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the reference to rule "AR. 64D." on this same page of this document. Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that, again, there is no such rule under the Rules of Racing. Ms Galpin accepted that it was probable there was no such rule but she said she knew that the content of the rule was correct. Ms Galpin said she has updated the document. However, the updated document was not tendered by Ms Galpin to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the updated document is in existence.
9. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to a document Ms Galpin had lodged with the Tribunal on 11 December 2024 entitled "Racing Industry; RGR08 Breeding and Racing Package Training logbook support for stable operations - Thoroughbred Racing - RGR40118 - Cert IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) - RGR50118 Diploma or Racing (Racehorse Trainer) Training Log" ('A.O.R.A. Training Logbook').[135] Ms Galpin said that these were "the old training logs" and that she has changed "the criteria of validation" because it was "too complicated" in the old log.
10. Ms Dhanji asked where the updated training log was and Ms Galpin asserted that Ms Dhanji had a copy of it. Ms Dhanji said that they did not have a copy of it. Then, Ms Galpin gave evidence that the document at page 1,103 of Ms Galpin's Third HTB was the logbook which she had worked on in the last 12 months because it was "unclear, messy to deal with and not a good working tool". Ms Galpin referred to there being another document in existence being the "Student Validation Document" which she said is to be signed off by the "witness".
11. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin back to the A.O.R.A. Training Logbook. When asked by Ms Dhanji to confirm that this was not to be the logbook Ms Galpin was intending to use, Ms Galpin replied that it was going to be but they had worked with this document before and it "ends up with so many signatures on it" and "so many dates". She added that it is "unclear, it doesn't photocopy well, it doesn't come through on an online digital format world. It's messy".[136] Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the garbled/corrupted text on this A.O.R.A. Training Logbook. Ms Galpin accepted it was difficult to read what was on the page of this document and she said, "this is one of reasons I scrapped it".[137]
12. Ms Dhanji referred to Ms Galpin's oral evidence that she had worked on the A.O.R.A. Training Logbook in the last 12 months and put a proposition to Ms Galpin that it should reflect the units she was intending to teach which correlated with her Replacement TAS. Ms Galpin responded that it was "just a sample". Then, Ms Galpin told the Tribunal she has "scrapped it". The Tribunal takes this mean that Ms Galpin is not proposing to use this version of the training log for the purpose of undertaking the assessments when delivering her courses. However, this document is the most recent version of Ms Galpin's training log put before the Tribunal prior to the conclusion of the substantive hearing, so it is appropriate for the Tribunal to evaluate its state of readiness to be used as an evaluation tool in Ms Galpin's proposed RTO.
13. The Tribunal notes that in the A.O.R.A. Training Logbook has checklists in it for each of the following units:

(a) RGRH207 "Handle Horses Safely"; > > (b) RGRCMN001 "Comply with the rules of racing and related protocols"; > > (c) RGRPSH503 "Trial and race horses"; > > (d) RGRCMN401 "Maintain and monitor OHS procedures and environmental work practices"; > > (e) RGRPSH417 "Participate in protests, inquiries and appeals"; > > (f) *RGRPSH408 "Manage horse health and welfare"; > > (g) *RGRPSH421 "Operate horse racing training business"; > > (h) RGRPSH301 "Implement stable operations"; > > (i) RGRPSH302 "Supervise handling of horses"; > > (j) RGRPSH401 "Relate anatomical and physiological features to the care and treatment of horses"; > > (k) **RGRPSH502 "Plan and implement education of horses for racing"; > > (l) BSBSMB402 "Market the small business"; > > (m) **RGRPSH504 "Develop systems and records for horse racing business training operations"; > > (n) RGRH207 "Handle Horses Safely"; > > (o) HLTFA.3018 "Apply first aid"; > > (p) RGRPSH202 "Assist with transportation of horses"; > > (q) RGRCMN001 "Comply with the rules of racing and related protocols"; > > (r) RGRPSH208 "Attend horse at trackwork"; > > (s) RGRPSH209 "Attend horses at race meetings and trials"; > > (t) RGRCMN202 "Achieve requirements for industry induction"; > > (u) PUACOM00 Communicate in the workplace; > > (v) RGRPSH301 Implement stable operations; > > (w) *RGRPSH302 Supervise handling of horses; > > (x) RGRPSH303 Supervise transportation of horses; > > (y) RGRPSH304A Identify factors that affect racehorse performance; > > (z) RGRPSH308 Provide first aid and emergency care of horses; > > (aa) RGRPSH309 Implement feeding programs for racehorses under directions > > (bb) SRXGRO002 Deal with conflict; > > (cc) PRSSO323 Lead small teams; > > (dd) SRXEMR001 Respond to emergency situations; > > (ee) BSBITU203 Communicate electronically; > > (ff) RGRCMN002 Manage personal health and fitness; > > (gg) RGRPSH420A Participate in implementing racehome exercise program;

(a) with one asterisk, if the unit is currently a core unit of competency prescribed in the training package for the RGR40118 Certificate IV on training.gov.au; > > (b) with two asterisk, if the unit is currently a core unit of competency prescribed in the training package for the RGR50118 Diploma on training.gov.au.

15. The Tribunal notes that checklists for the following four core units for the RGR40118 Certificate IV course are missing from the A.O.R.A. Training Logbook: BSBSM407; BSBWHS301; RGRCMN2023; and RGRCMN305.
16. The Tribunal notes that checklists for the following five core units for the RGR50118 Diploma course are missing from the A.O.R.A. Training Logbook: BSBSUS501; RGRCMN402; RGRPSH422; RGRSH501 and RGRPSH505.
17. The Tribunal finds that the A.O.R.A. Training Logbook is incomplete because it does not contain checklists for the majority of the core units of competency for each of the RGR Courses which Ms Galpin would like to deliver. The Tribunal notes that the A.O.R.A Training Logbook also does not contain checklists for most of the elective units which need to be completed for the two RGR courses and still includes some checklists for units not forming part of either of the RGR Courses. The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin's Training Logbook requires substantial re-working before it could be described as being correct and ready to use to deliver either of the two RGR Courses.
18. For this reason, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.8 of the Standards.

Whether Ms Galpin has in place applicable and adequate RPL kits for the units of competency she is proposing to deliver

1. In November 2023, ASQA found that the RPL tools for each of the units in the CAQA TASs were compliant. However, the Tribunal has found those tools will not be used by Ms Galpin due to the copyright issues and the outstanding contractual dispute between Ms Galpin and CCI who is the owner of the copyright over those documents. Ms Galpin lodged a further set of RPL kits with the Tribunal which she sourced from using templates developed by Training WA. Ms Galpin lodged with the Tribunal and sought to rely upon these Replacement RPL Kits.
2. At the hearing, Ms Galpin confirmed that she had downloaded a RPL toolkit template, produced by Training WA, and had inserted details into it which were specific to her training organisation.[138] Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin if the document was complete. Ms Galpin said it was "almost" complete. Ms Galpin said there "may be some more changes". The fact that those templates have not been fully completed and finalised is notable, because this same issue arose and was brought to Ms Galpin's attention during the previous hearing before the AAT.
3. Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that most of the documents, that is, the Replacement RPL Kits which were lodged with the Tribunal, had not been populated. Ms Galpin disagreed and said that only certain sections of them had not been populated. Ms Galpin suggested that the document would become individualised, according to the student.
4. Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that the Replacement RPL Kits which she had tendered were templates and only "very limited updates" had been made to them, to make them specific to Ms Galpin's RTO. Ms Galpin said she agreed with this proposition. Ms Galpin also said that the kits did not cover all of the electives. Ms Galpin said they only covered 19 units and do not cover the "whole syllabus of 40118 and 50118, and it's one of the things I've raised with them".[139]
5. Regardless of who is to blame for this outcome, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Replacement RPL Kits that Ms Galpin elected to lodge with the Tribunal, are incomplete and not in a state of readiness to be used if her registration as an RTO is restored. They are mostly unpopulated Training WA templates. This is a further reason why the Tribunal considers that Ms Galpin does not comply with subclause 1.8 of the Standards.

1. The Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.8 of the Standards because Ms Galpin does not have in place applicable and adequate primary assessment tools for the units of competency she is proposing to deliver as described above.
2. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.8 of the Standards because Ms Galpin's assessment materials do not provide accurate or adequate benchmarking in relation to the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course, as described above.
3. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.8 of the Standards because the Assessor Assessment Packs purchased by Ms Galpin and lodged with the Tribunal, have not been sufficiently contextualised as described above, for the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course which Ms Galpin is proposing to deliver.
4. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.8 of the Standards because Ms Galpin's assessment tools refer to incorrect and outdated criteria and information as described above.
5. In the alternative, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin does not comply with Clause 1.8 of the Standards because Ms Galpin does not have in place applicable and adequate RPL kits for the units of competency she is proposing to deliver as described above.

Condition of registration under s 22A of the NVR Act

1. 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".
2. When addressing s 22A in ASQA's Outline of Submissions, ASQA contends that despite Ms Galpin lodging her second and third tranches of rectification evidence, that ASQA has found that she remains non-compliant with clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.8, 1.13, 1.16, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.2 of the Standards. ASQA referred to its Second Evidence Review Report, issued in October 2024, in which it was identified by ASQA that:[140]

(a) there have been long-standing findings of non-compliance. ASQA highlights that over the course of Ms Galpin's registration as an RTO and through the decision review process, Ms Galpin has had multiple opportunities to provide evidence of rectification of non-compliance. Despite this, ASQA asserts that Ms Galpin remains critically non-compliant, and ASQA has low confidence in her ability or capacity to become compliant and to remain so;[141] > > (b) 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;[142] and > > (c) despite several attempts, the non-compliance itself has remained largely consistent over each review. ASQA contends that this points to serious failings in Ms Galpin's self-assurance systems and processes. ASQA contends that even if Ms Galpin returned to "basis compliance" that there is low confidence that Ms Galpin's self-assurance measures would sufficiently identify and respond to risk and systemic issues within the organisation. ASQA contends that Ms Galpin would be unlikely to remain compliant in the longer term.[143]

3. When deciding whether Ms Galpin has demonstrated "a commitment, and the capability, to deliver quality vocational education and training", the Tribunal proposes to take into account the following:

(a) whether Ms Galpin has the resources to deliver the RGR Courses at the scale as projected by Ms Galpin; > > (b) whether Ms Galpin has adequate and current resources available to deliver quality VET when delivering the specified units of competency for the RGR Courses, including: > > > (i) adequate documentary resources; and > > > > (ii) in additional to herself, other staff or contractors, to conduct the training and assessment of the specified units of competency, in the delivery of quality VET; > > (c) whether Ms Galpin has current qualifications, skills, and industry knowledge, to be capable of: > > > (i) finalising, and continuously monitoring and updating her training and assessment materials for the units of competency prescribed for the RGR Courses, for instance, by ensuring that the information contained in Ms Galpin's TASs for the RGR40118 and RGR50118 qualifications, and her pre-enrolment learner information, learner guides, logbooks, and assessor assessment guides for each unit of competency being offered by Ms Galpin, are complete, comprehensive, up-to-date, and accurate; and > > > > (ii) teaching and assessing the units of competency she is intending to deliver to learners as part of the RGR Courses or to oversee other trainers and assessors subsequently employed or engaged by her to do so.

Ms Galpin's level of commitment to deliver quality vocation education and training

1. During closing submissions, Ms Galpin gave evidence that she had made an "an enormous attempt over the last decade to see these units get, this package get up" and had put in an "enormous amount" of her own funds.[144] Ms Dhanji, on behalf of ASQA, did not doubt that Ms Galpin had "aspirations" to resume the operations of her training organisation.
2. The Tribunal notes that the reference to "vocational education and training" in s 22A of the NVR Act is qualified by the word "quality". The Tribunal must consider whether Ms Galpin has the necessary commitment to deliver "quality" VET.
3. After hearing Ms Galpin's oral evidence at the substantive hearing of this matter, the Tribunal considers that she fell short of demonstrating the commitment required to do what is necessary to finalise her learning and assessments resources to a level that will enable her to deliver "quality" VET. The Tribunal acknowledges that Ms Galpin has invested time and funds into developing her training organisation's TASs, her induction documents and her training and assessment resources for the units of competencies for the RGR Courses. However, on balance, the Tribunal concludes that Ms Galpin's commitment is partial in that it has only ever extended to developing materials in draft form such they require further revision for them to be used to undertake the training and assessment and to deliver quality VET training and assessment in relation to the RGR Courses, as conceded by Ms Galpin during the hearing.
4. Further, it is apparent from reviewing the training and assessment materials put forward by Ms Galpin that her documents have not been checked for accuracy, relevance, currency, or to ensure that they are complete and do not have sections of the documents missing. Since the date of the Federal Court appeal decision, Ms Galpin submitted three different voluminous sets of rectification evidence (some of the documents contained within the sets were lodged on different dates) and yet, at the substantive hearing, ASQA was able to continue, rather easily, to identify omissions and errors throughout Ms Galpin's proposed TASs and training resources, and in relation to which, Ms Galpin did not have any satisfactory or plausible explanations.
5. The Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin has, during this proceeding, ceased work on those materials if, in her opinion, those documents were satisfactory, rather than demonstrating a commitment to finalise the training resources after taking into account and fully addressing the feedback which had been provided by ASQA in its evidence review reports and by the AAT during the earlier AAT hearing before the appeal hearing. Ms Galpin had the benefit of detailed feedback set out in the earlier AAT decision and the two subsequent comprehensive ASQA evidence review reports setting out what she might do to update her qualifications and to finalise her TASs and training and assessment resources to satisfactory standard. While Ms Galpin has shown a certain degree of commitment to making some significant changes to those documents, the documents themselves demonstrate that Ms Galpin was not committed to "go the distance" required to properly complete this task, by finalising the documents to a standard that would enable her to comply with Clause 1.1 (read in conjunction with Clause 1.2) and Clause 1.8 of the Standards.
6. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin has not demonstrated that she had the requisite level of commitment to deliver quality VET.

Intended scale of Ms Galpin's training operations if her registration is restored

1. On the first day of the hearing, Ms Galpin confirmed that it was her intention, as stated in her business plan, for 50 students to undertake the RGR40018 Certificate IV Course.[145]
2. On the last day of the hearing, Mr Galpin confirmed that the mode of delivering the RGR Courses would be online. Ms Dhanji highlighted that no evidence had been put before the Tribunal by Ms Galpin about her "websites and social media tools" that she intended to use. Ms Galpin misunderstood the context of Ms Dhanji's question and initially responded by saying that she would be relying on "word of mouth" and that the legislation does not require her to have a website.
3. When redirected to the question about her proposed mode of communication with students, Ms Galpin said that she was intending to set up a website and would communicate with students by telephone. Ms Galpin focussed again on the marketing aspects of her business and that she had already had a page on Facebook set aside, which she described as a one-page advertisement, "like a brochure". Ms Galpin mentioned Inside Racing which she said was a magazine. The Tribunal reminded Ms Galpin that she was being asked about her intended mode of communication with students, rather than her intended ways of advertising her training organisation.[146] Ms Galpin answered by "computer and telephone".[147] She clarified that she would communicate with her students by email, would not be using a chat room and for larger documents, that she would send out a USB stick to students.
4. During cross-examination, Ms Galpin was asked if she had the capability to deliver this course to 50 students. Ms Galpin answered in the affirmative. When asked whether Ms Galpin would be able to "monitor" 50 students, Ms Galpin responded she did not say she would be doing so alone.[148] Ms Galpin agreed that 50 students, for her alone, would be disproportionate. She added that as a "trade teacher", a person could not do more than 11 students.[149]
5. Ms Galpin confirmed that she was intending to offer the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course nationally, and she added that this "does come with problems". Ms Galpin confirmed she does not currently have any trainers or assessors employed at the moment to assist her to deliver the RGR Course. However, Ms Galpin gave evidence that as soon as her registration is restored, she will be able to employ such trainers and assessors (which she said she had on standby and had provided their details to the Tribunal), and that they would assist her to conduct training and assessment within her RTO.
6. On the last day of the hearing, ASQA contended that Ms Galpin has not demonstrated "meaningful engagement with any of the proposed staff members". Ms Galpin does not accept this proposition.[150]
7. The Tribunal accepts Ms Galpin's evidence that she is likely to be able to rally up existing contacts to bring on as trainers and assessors if her registration as an RTO was restored. However, even if Ms Galpin is able to do so, the Tribunal is concerned about the accuracy and the completeness of the training and assessment materials that Ms Galpin intends to use and to provide to any future trainers and assessors for the units in respect of the RGR Courses which Ms Galpin is proposing to deliver. Putting that issue aside for one moment, the Tribunal is satisfied, on balance, that the intended scale of Ms Galpin to take on 50 students if her registration is restored, is not likely to present any immediate capacity problems, particularly if Ms Galpin employs or engages other people to assist her, which she gave evidence that she is intending to do.

Whether Ms Galpin has demonstrated that she has sufficient current knowledge about the racing industry, laws, and licensing requirements, to be capable of delivering quality VET in respect of the RGR Courses

1. Ms Galpin considers that she has a level of knowledge, skills, and experience in the horse racing industry, to be capable of delivering or overseeing the delivery of the RGR Courses to learners. ASQA disagrees.
2. Firstly, ASQA contends that Ms Galpin, "has not demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of licensing requirements to give ASQA confidence that this information would be provided to prospective learners or provided accurately".[151] This is a reference to the licensing requirements to work as a racehorse trainer, on account of racehorse training involving high risk activities and other matters.
3. Ms Galpin said that she disagreed with the proposition that she had not demonstrated a knowledge or understanding of the licensing requirements. Ms Galpin explained that she would not be enrolling a prospective learner in the course unless they were employed or had a position in racing. She said they will need to show they are enrolled in a "principal club in the state of Australia". She explained they would want to see "their tags, their registrations, which club and verify their racing records, which will be a print out from the principal club". Ms Galpin said that if the prospective learner is not "registered" that Ms Galpin "won't be enrolling them. They have to be able to work within a facility and have access to racetracks and horses, registered racehorses, not retired ones, registered racehorses, not assimilating. And I've made it really clear".[152]
4. On the morning of the last day of the hearing, Ms Galpin tendered a list of ten units in respect of which Anthony Celzo had informed Ms Galpin he has available and could provide as "off the shelf" training materials, at the cost of about $450 per unit.[153] Ms Galpin said she believed that Mr Celzo was saying that he did not have any of the RGR Course units. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin what she was proposing to do, then, if her doors opened the following day. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether she was capable of developing the training materials herself, based on her qualifications, skills, and knowledge.[154] This question led to an exchange between Ms Galpin and the Tribunal where Ms Galpin:

(a) referred to it being a "very good idea" that she has a support person to assist her; > > (b) said that it was "fairly impossible" to buy the training materials for the RGR units; > > (c) Ms Galpin wanted to have a full set of training materials; > > (d) it will be beneficial to her in "upgrading" those materials; > > (e) she had provided the materials but she wanted to go over some of them "when [her] mind's not quite so tired"; > > (f) to the best of her knowledge, she believed she has a full set of materials but also pointed out that she would be delivering only one unit at a time to learners.

5. On the last day of the hearing, the Tribunal addressed the parties about the training materials for:

(a) one of the core units for RGR40118 Certificate IV Course, namely, unit RGRPSH302 "Supervise handling of horses"; and > > (b) one of the core units for RGR50118 Diploma Course, namely, unit RGRPSH503 "Develop systems and records for horseracing business training operations".

6. Ms Galpin told the Tribunal those materials had been prepared by Paul Blumier, Ms Galpin, "Joanne" from RTO Services, and "a lady called Noreen".[155] Ms Galpin said that had been worked on in the "last week" (that is, while the case was adjourned between the second and final day of the hearing). Ms Galpin told the Tribunal, "I went through and read them. So I opened all the files, unpacked them all and downloaded them and then uploaded them, put them through three different programs to check them, like, word checks. I did quite a lot of work on them".
7. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin on the last day of the hearing if they were finalised and in a state that she would use if she were to open her doors (as an RTO) the following day. Ms Galpin said, "I hope so" and upon being asked if this meant "yes", "no" or that she was "not quite sure", she answered "yes" initially. Then, she said she was "not quite sure", because she was going to "have a look at them" and she might find something that she was "unhappy with".[156]
8. Ms Grant gave evidence that the resource for unit RGRPSH302 was a nine-page document with no learning resources included and no assessments included.[157] Ms Grant said that the nine-page document has a "reference to elements and performance criteria unrelated to the unit". Ms Grant highlighted that pages 5 to 9 inclusive of this document, contained red text, which appeared to be an earlier iteration of "the superseded preceding product" and she said, again, there is "no learning resources" and "no assessments". Ms Grant clarified that the training materials for this unit does have a learner guide but that the contents of it "would not be consistent with a learner guide".[158]
9. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the red text in this document (at page 293 of Ms Galpin's Third HTB) and asserted that there were no clear instructions for the learner to be able to do the required tasks for the skill of "applying safe handling and work practices when dealing with horses". Ms Galpin said she could not see that there were no clear instructions. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin what a learner was supposed to do to show that they have this particular skill. The Tribunal notes the exchange which followed:

MS GALPIN: Well, hopefully they would have already done horse handling. This is supervise somebody - supervise someone else to handle a horse (indistinct). > > MS DHANJI: So Ms Galpin, this is a document that is going to a learner. It's telling a learner that they must demonstrate this required skill. > > MS GALPIN: So do you think that person hasn't been in a (indistinct)? Do you think that person isn't registered as a - no, just bear with me, because we're not dealing with babies.

10. This answer from Ms Galpin is unsatisfactory. It demonstrated that Ms Galpin would appear to have no intention of authentically assessing a learner to see if they can do certain tasks to show they possess this particular skill, on the basis that she only proposes to enrol licensed trainers who are presumed, by her, to already know how to do this task.[159] Ms Galpin was asked to point to the part of this document which informs a learner what they need to do to satisfy her that they have applied safe handling and work practices. Ms Galpin referred to the following sentence "Applies safe handling and work practices when dealing with horses". This is the description of the skill required to be demonstrated and does not provide a description of the task required to be performed by the leaner to demonstrate that they possess this skill. This omission by Ms Galpin demonstrates that she is incapable of adequately finalising the training materials for this unit, does not understand the significance of adding tasks to the training materials which make it clear how a learner is to demonstrate that they have certain skills and it is also indicative that Ms Galpin is not proposing to genuinely assess whether the learner can perform those tasks if they are licensed and instead, she will presume they possess this task in the absence of an evaluation.
11. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the two learner guides she had lodged with the Tribunal for the RGRPSH504 "Develop Systems and Records for Horse Racing Business Training Operations" unit. The second document at p 545 of Ms Galpin's Third HTB would appear to relate to the current core unit of the RGR40118 Certificate IV Course, with the code RGRPSH504, and the first document at p 535 of Ms Galpin's Third HTB would appear to relate to an older, now superseded unit, RGRPSH504A.
12. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin if the first document at page 534 was accurate and up to date. Ms Galpin answered, "I can't be sure".[160] Ms Dhanji asked whether she would need to check it. Ms Galpin said she would be happy to check it. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether she felt she needed to check it. Ms Galpin said, "I do. I can see already I need to, because something hasn't come through with the RGRPSH504, the 'A' is still there, so I'm not sure what's happened with that page and why the updates haven't - I don't have an explanation for that."[161]
13. Ms Dhanji took Ms Galpin to the second page of the second document on page 545 and asked her if the listed performance criteria were up to date. Ms Galpin answered, "I believe to the best of my ability, yes".[162]
14. Ms Grant gave evidence that the course content should be included in the learner guide. She said the unit of competency lays out the required skills, knowledge and tasks or things to be assessed. She said that ASQA expects that the learner guide to contain the knowledge base for the students to gain an understanding of whatever it is that they need to demonstrate before commencing assessment. In addition to the learner guide, Ms Grant said that ASQA expects that an RTO will also have an assessment system and it may have supplementary information but that ASQA would expect the RTO's learner guide to contain links to such information so that students are aware of it.[163]
15. Ms Grant confirmed that it was ASQA's position that Ms Galpin's learner guide does not have any course content in it.[164]
16. The Tribunal directed that Ms Galpin provide any documents, in respect of units RGRPSH302 and RGRPSH504, within 24 hours (of the last day of the hearing), related to her assessment system which would include the assessments the learners were required to do and the information provided to the trainers about how they are to evaluate the assessments.[165] For each of these units Ms Galpin lodged a document entitled "Assessment(sic) Outline and Tasks". They were both of poor quality and contained formatting and some typographic errors. They were difficult to read and understand and did not list the individual tasks the learner needed to complete to demonstrate that they possessed the different skills referred to in this document. These document in inadequate and required re-working.
17. The Tribunal considers that Ms Galpin's statements in the following exchange with Ms Dhanji during cross-examination about delivering the RGR Courses nationally, displayed her lack of current knowledge about the different licensing requirements in the horse racing industry for each State and Territory:[166]

MS DHANJI: It comes with problems? > > MS GALPIN: M'mm. > > MS DHANJI: So if a student is based in a state or territory other than Victoria, they have specific licensing requirements in their state or territory? > > MS GALPIN: They all come under the banner of Australian Racing Board. > > MS DHANJI: But they have specific jurisdictional requirements? > > MS GALPIN: They all come under the banner of the Australian Racing Board. > > MS DHANJI: Ms Galpin, I really ask you to answer the question that I'm asking? > > MS GALPIN: I know you do. > > MS DHANJI: I really need you to answer that question. Can you do that for me, please? > > MS GALPIN: No. > > MS DHANJI: No? > > MS GALPIN: Because you're asking me a question that doesn't correlate to my understanding of what your understanding - - - > > SENIOR MEMBER: > > Ms Galpin, I might just make the observation that the answer doesn't seem to correlate with the question that was asked. Now, you can choose not to answer the request [or] to answer the question again, and I'll note that as such, but I just want to be fair to you to say that the answer you gave does not align with the question that was asked of you. So just take a moment, if you want to think about whether you want to answer or not, or please let me know. But I just need to be fair, that it doesn't seem to be matching up? > > MS GALPIN: Thank you. Could you ask the question again, please? > > MS DHANJI: I can. So if a student is based in a state or territory other than Victoria, they will have different licensing requirements to Victoria; is that right? > > MS GALPIN: No. > > MS DHANJI: No? > > MS GALPIN: No.

18. This answer by Ms Galpin is incorrect. There is a system of licensing of trainers in each State and Territory of Australia. In Victoria, for instance, Racing Victoria sets out licensing information on its website, https://www.racingvictoria.com in relation to different licensing categories, including the licensing of "trainers".
19. The Tribunal lacks confidence based on the answers Ms Galpin gave to various questions asked for her about the different State and Territory licensing requirements at the hearing that Ms Galpin possesses an accurate knowledge of those requirements to enable her to convey accurate information to learners undertaking an RGR Course with her with the intention of becoming a licenced trainer. In the training and assessment resources lodged by Ms Galpin with the Tribunal, predominately, the licensing information intended to be provided to learners is based on the National or Victorian-based licensing requirements. This is unsatisfactory because it is likely to lead to a learner in another State and Territory to miss out on receiving information about the licensing requirements for a trainer as applicable in their State or Territory.
20. To explore the significance of this apparent lack of knowledge of Ms Galpin, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if any of the units in the RGR Courses related to teaching learners about the State and Territory licensing requirements. Ms Galpin responded, "Absolutely. It's called, 'The Protocols'". She said the unit is RGRCMN001A "Comply with the rules of racing and related protocols".[167] Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin if she was aware that this unit RGRCMN001A has now been superseded. Ms Galpin's response was, "I've had no notification of it".
21. Ms Galpin gave evidence that the Rules of Racing came under the Australian Racing Board and are national. She also said there is a document which sets out the horse-riding "gear" which can be used, and that this is a "nationally accredited" document.[168] The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin about the Rules of Racing issued by Racing Victoria, which had been produced to the Tribunal. Ms Galpin said, "you'll see a lot of those rules go back to the Australian Racing Board". The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether the Rules of Racing had been issued by Racing Victoria. Ms Galpin said, "That particular copy". The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether the Australian Racing Board had its own set of rules separate to Racing Victoria. Ms Galpin answered in the negative and said that "The Australian Racing Board is the legislated document" and it is a "living document" which "continually changes".[169] She said that the Australian Racing Board had issued the Rules of Racing.[170]
22. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin if there was any State-based legislation, in Victoria, which "covers the subject matter of horse racing". Ms Galpin answered, "No, I'm not aware".[171] Then, Ms Galpin said as follows:[172]

I'll have to take that on notice because my understanding of it is the Rules of Racing - and that particular copy - is furnished to me by Racing Victoria. It will have a Racing Victoria emblem on it. It's their copy. But the rules of Australian racing, if we go onto the website, you can find that you can just download the Australian Rules of Racing, and they correlate between every state, otherwise we wouldn't have horses crossing borders. They'd be under a whole new set of rules.

23. Ms Galpin remarked that in New South Wales the horses "always goes to the left" and in Victoria, they go to the right. [173] The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to confirm her evidence that she was not aware of any legislation enacted in Victoria that governed the activity of horse racing. Ms Galpin said she would need to take this question "on notice" and explained that they change all the time and that "Western Australia might have just made up something yesterday".[174]
24. In Victoria there is a comprehensive legislation in existence governing the activities of horse racing activities in Victoria, namely, the Racing Act 1958 (Vic). This Act provided that the Rules of Racing Victoria are binding on certain persons, covers the regulation of race-meetings in Victoria and the issuing of licences including racing club licences. These laws establish and set out the functions of the Racing Integrity Commissioner in Victoria and the Victorian Racing Tribunal. Ms Galpin's evidence as set out in paragraph [301] and [303] demonstrated that Ms Galpin lacks basic knowledge and awareness about the legislative framework within which horse racing activities are regulated in Victoria. For this reason, the Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin is not capable of delivering quality VET in respect of delivering RGR Courses.

1. The Tribunal has considered whether Ms Galpin has qualifications and current vocational experience which would indicate that she has the requisite degree of knowledge to be capable of:

(a) finalising, and continuously monitoring/updating, her training and assessment materials for the RGR Courses, for instance, by ensuring that the information contained in Ms Galpin's Replacement TASs for RGR40118 and RGR50118 qualifications, and A.O.R.A.'s pre-enrolment learner information, learner guides, logbooks, and assessor assessment guides for each unit of competency being offered by Ms Galpin, are complete, comprehensive, up-to-date, and accurate; and > > (b) to teach and assess the units of competency she is intending to deliver to learners as part of the RGR Courses or to oversee other trainers and assessors subsequently employed or engaged by her to do so.

2. Based on the certificates and academic transcripts that Ms Galpin has lodged with the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that Ms Galpin has attained the following qualifications, or has completed the following units of study:

(a) Diploma of Teaching (Tech & Further Ed) Method: Hairdressing granted by the Hawthorn Institute of Education in 1993; > > (b) Graduate Diploma of Education granted by the Hawthorn Institute of Education, The University of Melbourne, on 27 May 1994; > > (c) Bachelor of Educational Studies granted by Monash University on 14 March 1995; > > (d) Master of Education Studies at Monash University, thesis submitted in 2001; > > (e) 21395VIC Course in Racing (Cross Country Horse Trainer) and RGR50102 Diploma in Racing (Thoroughbred Trainer) granted by The University of Ballarat. Ms Galpin's academic transcript was produced showing that the units of study for those two courses were undertaken in the year, 2006, and that the qualifications were granted on 15 August 2007;[175] > > (f) single unit of study, RGRPSH423A "Train Horses for Jumping Racing" from the Certificate IV in Racing (Racehorse Trainer) course, granted by South West Institute of Technical and Further Education on 29 June 2009;[176] > > (g) Certificate in Studying and Writing for Certificate of Education Support Courses comprising a six-hour course) completed at Monash University on 18 July 2015; > > (h) Diploma in Caregiving Skills - Dementia Care awarded by a free online training organisation in Ireland,[177] by the name of "Alison", on 26 November 2021;[178] > > (i) Diploma in Nursing Leadership and Care Management awarded by "Alison" on 27 February 2022;[179] and > > (j) Certificate in Elderly Care and Caring for the Disabled awarded by "Alison" on 27 November 2022.[180]

3. On the second day of the hearing, Ms Galpin gave oral evidence that she is a "Stud Master Galpin Stud Licensed General Trainer Racing Victoria (Jumps Trainer)". Ms Galpin said she is no longer licenced as a trainer and no longer has a stud licence. Ms Galpin said that she only currently holds a breeding licence.
4. The Tribunal acknowledges that between 1993 and 2001, Ms Galpin has attained several qualifications relating to educational studies, the most recent being a Master of Education at Monash University in 2001.
5. However, the Tribunal notes that Ms Galpin has not attained the TAE40116 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment qualification nor undertaken any appropriate professional development in the field of vocational education and training since that time. In the AAT Decision, the AAT referred to Ms Galpin not holding this TAE40116 Certificate IV qualification.[181]
6. At the AAT hearing, Ms Galpin said that to continue her professional development, she "gave up her weekends" to do professional development in curriculum writing at Monash (in 2017). The evidence before the Tribunal suggests that this was a six-hour course for the qualification of Certificate in Studying and Writing for Certificate of Education Support completed at Monash University on 18 July 2015.
7. Ms Galpin said did a two-day workshop at ASQA in vocational education and training.
8. The Tribunal does not consider this qualification to be significant or to close the gap in respect of Ms Galpin showing she had kept her qualifications up to date.
9. On the second day of the hearing before this Tribunal, the Tribunal asked Ms Galpin whether she had remembered the general thrust of the discussion at the earlier AAT hearing about her qualifications and professional development being outdated. Ms Galpin said she did. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin what she had done since the AAT hearing to update her professional qualifications and/or training.[182] Ms Galpin told the Tribunal she had completed a Diploma of Nursing Management (Leadership and Care Management) issued on 27 February 2022.[183] The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin how this qualification related to running an RTO about horseracing. Ms Galpin that her RTO and "her person" was "under continuous improvement" and that "while we were in lockdown", this course had been suggested to her "to further develop herself". Ms Galpin endeavoured to draw a link. She said that "every time we have fast work at a track, we'll have an ambulance chasing. So it's understanding, that's all it is. So it relates to me". She said in her industry a lot of jockeys and people within her industry "get hurt". She said it would give her insight because she might suddenly have somebody hurt or "the trainer that I'm training might be in a position".
10. Ms Galpin said she undertook the nursing course online and added "I did it to see how the other online courses actually appear - delivered on a world scale and it's pretty snappy".
11. Ms Galpin's reasons for undertaking the Diploma in Nursing Management kept changing. The Tribunal is not persuaded that this course is related in any way to the RGR Courses and has not aided Ms Galpin to update her knowledge and skills to be able to capably deliver quality VET. The same applies to the other courses awarded by "Alison". Specifically, Ms Galpin said she had also done a course relating to elderly care and caring for the disabled. When asked whether that course related to training racehorse trainers, Ms Galpin suggested that it might, in that she may need to assess a person with dementia. The Tribunal asked Ms Galpin to confirm if she would accept someone with dementia into her course (being the RGR Courses), to which she responded "no". Then, Ms Galpin said it is "just a growth thing".[184]
12. The Tribunal notes the exchange that following between the Tribunal and Ms Galpin:[185]

TRIBUNAL: But you've put that forward as evidence that you're keeping your skills up-to-date? > > MS GALPIN: Well, I'm improving my skills. > > TRIBUNAL: Yes. But they're not related. What I'm putting to you, they're not related to training horseracing trainers. Where are the qualifications and professional development that you've done since the last hearing that has managed to bring up-to-date your training and professional development in relation to the subject of horseracing trainers? > > MS GALPIN: Well then if you tell me where I can actually go and do a diploma of racing. > > TRIBUNAL: So I take that, there hasn't been any? > > MS GALPIN: It's not available. > > TRIBUNAL: It's not available. So you don't have any - - -? > > MS GALPIN: It's just not available. I've reached my limits. > > TRIBUNAL: All right? > > MS GALPIN: I'm already fully qualified.

13. The Tribunal notes that Ms Galpin has not attained any recent qualifications or has had any current vocational experience, which are relevant to the subject matter of the RGR Courses or in relation to delivering VET. Ms Galpin has not been employed for the last six years and has had ample time to take steps to update her qualifications relevant to vocational education and training or in relation to the horse racing industry, but she has not done so. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Galpin gave evidence that she had attended a forum offered by ASQA in 2023 about AI programs and how AI is going to transfer to education and training.[186] This does not adequately resolve the concerns raised by ASQA about the currency and relevant of Ms Galpin's qualifications or vocational experience, which the Tribunal considers are well-founded.
14. Ms Galpin asserts that she is qualified to deliver the RGR Courses. On the last day of the hearing, Ms Galpin explained as follows:

Past experience - if you go onto racing.com and pop in the name Maxine Galpin, you'll see that I raced for over two decades. So, I have experience. I'm affiliated and I'm still on the Australian Trainer's website and so are all my race records, trials and everything I ever did. The other thing is that - we continually go into contention over is that I have a vocational training post-graduate diploma from Melbourne University. And like I said in the last hearing, I don't believe they have an expiry date, and I did eight-point subjects. So it only says that I'm to be qualified at that level, which I am.

15. Ms Grant said that ASQA has not said that Ms Galpin is not qualified in her diploma but that it asserts that she has not ensured, for each unit of competency she proposes to train and assess, that she has "vocational competence". Ms Grant said, "it is very important to remember, vocational competence is just not held through qualifications". Ms Grant said it can be "demonstrated through equivalence, which could be her vocational history". Ms Grant highlighted that ASQA has put to Ms Galpin, within both of its evidence reviews that it could not see, for every unit of competency that Ms Galpin is intending to train and assess, that she has undertaken a review to ensure that she is able to do so.
16. Ms Galpin's response to this assertion by Ms Grant was that Ms Grant had not even considered her history and that Ms Grant has "taken that quite harshly".[187]
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.

20. 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".
21. 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.

22. Ms Dhanji asked Ms Galpin about the www.racing.com 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 www.racing.com 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]
23. Ms Dhanji put to Ms Galpin that her Replacement TASs state that licensing conditions are on the www.racing.com 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 www.racing.com 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".
24. 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: www.racing.com 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: > > http://www.australianracingboard.com.au/ > > The 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

25. 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.

26. 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]
27. 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]
28. 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 http://www.australianracingboard.com.au/ 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, https://www.racingvictoria.com.au/ for Racing Victoria).
29. 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.
30. 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.

31. 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.
32. 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

1. 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]
2. 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.
3. 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]

4. 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).

5. 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.

(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.

7. 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. > > 1. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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

1. 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].
2. 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.

1. The Standards provide that for an organisation to meet a Standard, that each clause of the Standard must be met.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.

[2] Refer Standards, Part 1, "Purpose", paragraph [1].

[3] Refer Standards, Part 1, "Structure", second paragraph.

[5] Users' guide to the Standards for Registered Training Organisations 2015

[7] Exhibit A1. These documents have been received into evidence in this proceeding.

[8] Exhibit R1. This document has been received into evidence in this proceeding.

[9] Exhibit R2 and Transcript, P-154. This document has been received into evidence in this proceeding.

[10] The documents in Ms Galpin's Second HTB have been received into evidence in this proceeding.

[11] These documents have been received into evidence in this proceeding. Transcript, P-157.

[16] This document has been received into evidence in this proceeding.

[18] ASQA's Outline of Submissions, paragraph [44] and [45].

[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.

[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.

[24] The core units are specified as being:

(c) RGRCMN203 "Comply with racing industry ethics and integrity";

(d) RGRCMN305 "Participate in racing protests and inquiries";

(f) RGRPSH408 "Manage horse health and welfare"; and

(g) RGRPSH421 "Operate horse racing training business".

[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";

[26] https://www.aqf.edu.au/download/405/aqf-second-edition/3/aqf-second-edition/pdf

[29] Ms Galpin's First HTB, pages 1-15.

[31] First lodged in October 2023 in Ms Galpin's First HTB - refer pages 154-226.

[32] First lodged in October 2023 in Ms Galpin's First HTB - refer pages 260-324.

[33] First lodged in October 2023 in Ms Galpin's First HTB - Document 18.

[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).

[57] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, pages 626-643.

[61] Joint HTB, pages 185-192. Transcript P-114 & P-115.

[92] Amount of training | Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)

[103] By the term "primary", the Tribunal is referring to standard assessment tools, as distinct from RPL tools.

[104] ASQA's Position Paper, paragraph [19].

[105] Joint HTB, page 827 - paragraphs [18] and [19] of the Second Evidence Review Report.

[106] Ibid - paragraph [20] and [21] of the Second Evidence Review Report.

[112] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 438.

[113] Transcript, P-371. See Joint HTB, at page 207.

[121] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, Document 29.

[124] Ibid, P-392 and Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 664.

[125] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 644.

[128] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 655.

[131] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 435. The Tribunal notes in the footnote that it is stated this this document is "Version 1 April 2016 - Developed by RTO Audit Services for use with students at A.O.R.A.".

[133] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 438.

[135] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 1,103.

[140] ASQA's Second Evidence Review Report, page 4 at paragraph [8].

[141] ASQA's Outline of Submissions, paragraph [79a].

[161] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, page 543.

[181] Maxine Elizabeth Galpin, trading as Australian Online Racing Accreditation or A.O.R.A. and Australian Skills Quality Authority [2021] AATA 309, [140].

[202] Ms Galpin's Third HTB, pages 1-12.

[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.