Are you a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) or are you a School with a third party arrangement with an RTO? Fill out the form below to receive the latest news and updates regarding RTOs.
Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and Schools that have third party arrangements with RTOs to deliver Vocational Education and Training (VET) in schools for their students need to prepare for revised RTO Standards that will come into effect in mid-2025.
The Commonwealth Department of Employment and Workplace Relations released the policy versions of the revised standards on 1 October 2024.
In this article we look at some of the Revised Standards and how they will influence RTO operations and arrangements with schools in Victoria.
The current RTO Standards 2015 (Current Standards) are being replaced with new standards which will come into regulatory effect from 1 July 2025 (Revised Standards). They include:
The Revised Standards provide for a more streamlined set of standards compared with the Current Standards, although RTOs should factor in the separate legislative instruments and policy for compliance and trainer and assessor credentials.
Victorian RTOs, including schools which are also RTOs, that are regulated by the VRQA will not be impacted and remain subject to the AQTF 2010 Essential Conditions and Standards for Continuing Registration and the VRQA VET Provider Guidelines.
Schools engaging with RTOs under third party arrangements to deliver VET in schools to students may be impacted. For example, if you are a school delivering training under the auspices of an RTO that is regulated by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), then your third-party agreement arrangements will need to consider the Revised Standards.
RTOs regulated by ASQA will need to comply with the Revised Standards.
The new Outcomes Standards are framed against four quality area outcome statements under the pillars of:
Compliance will be determined at the standard level under each quality area. RTOs will have a greater autonomy in how they demonstrate compliance with the Outcomes Standards. ASQA has published Outcome Standards Policy Guidance to accompany the release of the Outcome Standards.
The Revised Standards move away from leaning on requirements for “training and assessment strategies and practices” and adopt outcomes-focused performance whereby RTOs must deliver training which is “engaging and well structured” (Standard 1.1), demonstrate “effective engagement with industry, employers and/or or community representatives” (Standard 2.2), and have an “assessment system” that is “fit for purpose” and “is quality assured…through a regular process of validating assessment practices and judgments.” (Standards 2.3-2.4).
Schools will be familiar with the concept of providing a culturally safe school environment for students in accordance with obligations under Ministerial Order 1359. The Revised Standards introduce Standard 2.5 requiring RTOs to demonstrate how they foster “a safe and inclusive learning environment for VET students” and “a culturally safe learning environment for First Nations people”. Schools with purchasing or services arrangements with RTOs regulated by ASQA can point to their child safety and wellbeing policies and child safety commitment to engage with RTOs about the needs of VET in school student cohorts. RTOs will need consider how they consult with industry, the community and students to create a safe and inclusive learning environment.
Standard 2.4 specifically requires RTOs to make reasonable adjustments to support VET students with disability to access and participate in training and assessment on an equal basis For Schools purchasing VET services from RTOs, both the School and the RTO have separate obligations to students with a disability.
The Revised Standards introduce risk management obligations for RTOs offering training and assessment to VET students aged under 18 years. RTOs will be required to identify and manage safety and wellbeing risks “consistent with principles for child safety organisations, having regard to the training content and mode of delivery (Standard 4.3).
RTO’s will need to review their child safety and wellbeing policies and codes of conduct if they do not already have in place and consider how child safety risks are managed at the organisational level. This is a positive step for schools with VET in schools arrangements as these types of arrangements fall within the meaning of the “school environment” under Ministerial Order 1359. Schools will be required to review the terms they have in place with third party providers, including RTOs, to meet Ministerial Order 1359.
To support your readiness to comply:
Contact our Education and Training team for tailored advice on how the Revised Standards may impact to your organisation, whether you are an RTO impacted by the Standards or a school that partners with RTOs. We can also help to review and develop policies as well as review third party arrangement contracts.
Fill out the form below to be added to our RTO information list.
Full Name*
Email*
Company name (if applicable)
Please contact us for more detailed and tailored help.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to you or your organisation.
Division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (“Div 7A”) deems certain payments and loans from private companies to their shareholders (or associates of those shareholders)1 and forgiveness of certain debts owed by the shareholder (or associates)2 as dividends paid by the private company to a shareholder, out of the profits of the company.3
An exception to the above deemed dividend rule is available where a loan from a private company is not fully repaid before the company’s lodgement day for the income year in which the loan was made and a loan agreement that complies with the requirements set out in Division 7A has been entered into before that day (“Div 7A Loans”).4
Despite an increase in minimum repayment requirements reflecting the heightened interest rates of late, Div 7A Loans continue to provide a safe harbour and effective tax planning tool for payments out of companies, which would otherwise be taxable as dividend income in the hands of the shareholder.
While the repayments of Div 7A Loans might be manageable during the lifetime of the borrower from other sources of income or dividend offsets, it could prove challenging for the executor to meet the minimum repayments or make a full repayment of such loans that remain owing post-death. Also, repayment requirements may affect the executor’s ability to fund the distribution of the estate in accordance with the borrower’s will and Div 7A Loans, particularly secured loans with 25-year terms, could delay completion of the administration of the estate.
Identifying and specifically planning for any loans, including Div 7A Loans, as part of the estate planning process during the lifetime of the borrower is therefore critical to address funding issues that may arise during the administration of the estate and mitigate unintended tax consequences to the estate.
If loans are owing by a deceased estate to a private company, the executors may consider the following actions during the administration of the estate:
The circumstances of each estate are unique and must be carefully considered to determine an executor’s best course of action, so that the interests of the beneficiaries are best protected and adverse tax consequences are minimised.
The Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team at Moores is one of the largest in Australia with expertise in succession planning, estate administration and taxation. We can assist you with managing the loans forming part of the estate, including loans owing from private companies, in the estate administration process in the most tax effective manner.
Contact us
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox
1Sections 109C, 109D and 109E of Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (“ITAA36”)
2Section 109F of ITAA36
3Section 109Z of ITAA36
4Section 109N of ITAA36
The breakdown of a marriage or de facto relationship can be an unsettling and stressful time.
As a starting point, Moores Special Counsel, Sarah Lacey and Bani Mishra, sat down in a Moores Q&A to answer some common questions you may have before and after a separation.
These steps do not have to be taken alone. We recommend you seek expert legal advice to guide you through the process and address all concerns specific to you and your circumstances.
If there has been family violence in the relationship, seek advice and support from a family violence professional or service.
On 22 October 2024, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published updated guidance for charities and not-for-profit (NFP) organisations relating to compliance with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs).
While the APPs themselves have not changed, updates to official guidance offer a fantastic opportunity for organisations to review their privacy policies and practices. We know that official guidance offers a valuable insight into the mind of the regulator – it tells us how the regulator interprets regulatory obligations, and what they expect from regulated entities. When you implement recommendations contained in official guidance, you are putting yourself on the same page as the OAIC – which can only be a good thing!
This recent guidance update deals predominantly with considerations for engaging third-party providers, such as for fundraising, or software vendors.
When you engage a third party to fundraise for you, or you install new software, you need to take steps to be satisfied that the third party, or third party software system is protecting personal information in line with all relevant privacy obligations. It can be dangerous to assume that other parties will be as privacy-minded as you are – such assumptions could result in data breaches and bad publicity for your organisation (even if it wasn’t technically your organisation that had the data breach).
In releasing the updated guidance, the OAIC noted the issue is “topical in the wake of high-profile data-breaches affecting charities and NFPs”. You may have seen recent news reports about a cybersecurity breach involving Pareto Phone and a number of Australian charities. According to reports, Pareto Phone was contracted by numerous Australian charities to conduct fundraising on their behalf and as such, was provided with personal information of thousands of donors. When Pareto Phone subsequently had a data breach, it was the donors whose personal information was subsequently published on the dark web. This kind of event can be devastating: not just to the individuals whose data has been compromised, but also to the charities, and the very deserving beneficiaries of charity efforts.
Charities and NFPs are right to be concerned about these privacy risks; and we are here to tell you that there are things you can do right now to help safeguard personal information held by your organisation. A great place to start is to familiarise yourself with the APPs, and the OAIC’s guidance on how to implement good privacy practices.
There’s a wealth of NFP-specific and general privacy guidance at the OAIC’s website. The APP guidance is a great place to start if you’re unsure about what the APPs are, and what they require.
If you are a charity of NFP, the APPs may or may not apply to your organisation – there are a number of threshold requirements to determine who is (or is not) an ‘APP entity’ (i.e. an entity that must comply with the APPs). If you’re not sure whether the APPs apply to you, you can reach out to one of our privacy experts, who can provide you with tailored advice on this issue.
Regardless of whether or not you meet that threshold, it is just good practice to develop sound privacy practices, supported by thorough policies and staff training. It will also help you to build upon your relationship of trust with your members and donors, who will appreciate knowing you take their privacy seriously.
If you are a charity or NFP looking to review, improve or develop your privacy compliance, we can help. We have dedicated privacy specialists who can work with you to design tailored policies, plans and procedures; train your staff; and help set you apart as a best-practice organisation, committed to the privacy of its valued community.
We can also draft tailored contracts for you to engage third parties in a way that aligns with and protects your commercial interests, while also prioritising the privacy of your members and donors.
Is your not-for-profit (NFP) contemplating a merger? This is part two of a five-part article series that will offer some practical guidance to your board or merger advisory committee. Subscribe to receive the remaining articles in the series.
There are a range of available NFP merger types depending on the legal structure of the organisations that propose to merge. Determining which of these available merger types is most appropriate requires an assessment of what is important to your NFP, including control, structural simplicity and containment of risk. Identifying the preferred merger type early on will:
The five most common merger types are summarised below, together with their pros and cons. Note that, depending on the structure of the merging organisations, some merger types may not be possible.
Under this model, NFP B transfers its assets and operations to NFP A. NFP B ceases to exist. This option may be appropriate if NFP A has multiple assets and complex operations and is considering merging with NFP B which has less assets and simple operations.
Pros
Cons
Under this model, NFP A becomes the parent of NFP B (by becoming the sole member of NFP B) and NFP A has control of NFP B. Both organisations survive and NFP B’s assets and operations remain in NFP B. This merger type may be appropriate if it is necessary to maintain separation, possibly because the two NFP’s purposes are not aligned or NFP B has known liabilities which need to be contained.
This may be an appropriate “transitional” step where NFP A controls NFP B for a period while transferring NFP B’s assets and operations into NFP A (before ultimately closing NFP B).
Under this model, NFP C is created as a new entity. Both NFP A and NFP B transfer their assets and operations to NFP C before they both cease to exist. This merger type may be appropriate if both NFP A and B want a fresh start on an equal playing field.
Under this model, NFP C is created (a new entity). NFP C is usually the parent (sole member of NFPs A & B) and NFP C would have control over both NFP A and NFP B. The outcome is that all three organisations remain in existence. This merger type may be appropriate if it is necessary to maintain separation (possibly because the two NFP’s purposes are not aligned, NFP A or NFP B have known liabilities which need to be contained or the complexity of their different operations means separate incorporation is preferable).
Under this model, NFP A and NFP B (incorporated associations in the same State and Territory except the Northern Territory) amalgamate to become a new NFP AB. The effect of amalgamation is that NFP A and NFP B cease to exist. NFP AB will assume all assets and liabilities of NFPs A and B and ordinarily, there is no need for assignment or novation of contracts.
Choosing the appropriate merger type is essential. The Charity and Not-for-profit Law team at Moores can help you understand the available merger types available to your merging organisations including the pros and cons of each option.
As at the 2021 Census, over 10% of families with dependant children were blended or step families1. These can present additional challenges in estate planning, particularly in relation to balancing the needs of a new spouse and those of children from a prior relationship.
In an ideal world, an estate plan should provide for all the important people in your life in a manner that ensures the risk of family conflict is minimised.
There are two main risks if the estate planning in a blended or step family is not adequate:
There are a number of strategies that can be utilised to mitigate the above issues in a blended or step family context:
Whether these strategies are workable in your estate planning will depend on a number of factors including how assets are owned, age of relevant parties, the value of the estate, whether any structures (companies, SMSFs or trusts) exist, and, ultimately, the people involved and their relationship with each other.
No one wants to leave a mess for their family when they pass. The planning in blended or step families requires careful consideration. This article touches on some key planning strategies for this scenario but is only the ‘tip of the iceberg’. Estate planning advice should be sort on your particular circumstances.
For expert advice or guidance regarding Estate Planning the Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team at Moores are well equipped to ensure the interests of your family are protected.
1https://aifs.gov.au/research/facts-and-figures/families-and-family-composition
When a person dies without a Will, their estate – comprising of their personally owned assets – is distributed according to the laws of intestacy (or commonly, the ‘intestacy provisions’). Depending on one’s circumstances, this can be distant relatives they’ve never met, or even the Crown.
In Victoria, the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) is the legislation that outlines the intestacy provisions. We have put together a helpful guide to the intestacy provisions, which includes the following:
A partner in this context means a spouse or a domestic partner. If the deceased leaves a partner and there are no children, then the partner will receive the entirety of the estate.1 Should the deceased leave a partner and surviving children with that partner, then the partner will still be entitled to the entirety of the estate.2 Where the deceased leaves a partner and children from a previous relationship, the partner will receive the deceased’s chattels, a statutory legacy (which was $559,660 in October 2024)3 and one half of the balance of the estate, with the other half to be shared equally between the deceased’s children.4
If the deceased leaves children but no partner, then the surviving children will equally share the estate. If a child predeceased the deceased, any surviving children they have will equally receive their parent’s share.5
In the event that the deceased leaves no partner or children, then the following hierarchy applies:
In many cases, friendships can be stronger than family relationships. Despite this, under the intestacy provisions, friends do not benefit.
If no family members are found, the assets of the deceased will pass to the Crown.10 There are some complexities that can arise, especially if potential distant family members cannot be verified. This was evident in a judicial advice application made by the State Trustees, where they were unable to verify if there was a relationship between the deceased and what appeared to be his father.11
Facts
Leslie Norman John Sholl (‘Leslie’) died without leaving a Will, spouse, children or any maternal relatives. His estate was worth approximately $550,000. The State Trustees conducted extensive inquiries into the Leslie’s history, including genealogical investigations and it was unclear whether he left any surviving family members.
During investigations, they uncovered various public records and a newspaper article which raised queries as to whether a relationship of father and child existed between Leslie and Leslie Norman Bull (‘Mr Bull’).
In 1946, Mr Bull got married however some four years later, Mr Bull married Joan Mary Sholl (‘Ms Sholl’). Shortly thereafter, Ms Sholl gave birth to Leslie but there was no record of the name of the father listed on the birth certificate. On 2 March 1953, a newspaper article appeared in the local paper which confirmed Mr Bull had pleaded guilty to a charge of bigamy, that being, the crime of marrying someone whilst still being legally married to someone else, making his marriage to Ms Sholl void. There was no direct evidence whether Ms Sholl and Mr Bull conceived Leslie during their marriage or if Mr Bull was even the father however, the fact that she named her child ‘Leslie Norman’, being Mr Bull’s first two names, suggested a connection.
Decision
The presumption at general law is that a child born or conceived during a marriage is the child of the husband of the mother, however this does not apply where the marriage is not valid. The issue the Court had was that despite Mr Bull pleading guilty to a charge of bigamy, there was no evidence of an annulment or dissolution of marriage with Ms Sholl. This ultimately led to the Court deciding that Mr Bull was Leslie’s father. Whilst Mr Bull was deceased, he had living relatives in England, making them beneficiaries of Leslie’s estate.
Ultimately, in the absence of a Will and clear family connections, the assets of a deceased person may either pass to distant relatives or, in the absence of any verifiable family, to the Crown. This highlights the importance of making a valid Will to ensure that one’s estate is distributed according to their wishes, avoiding the uncertainties that arise when intestacy laws come into play.
It is also important to remember that the intestacy provisions only relate to the personally held assets of the deceased person, and therefore do not automatically apply to other interests the deceased may have had, including in superannuation, trusts or jointly held assets. Separate rules apply to the succession of these interests.
The Wills, Estate Planning and Structuring team at Moores is one of the largest in Australia and can assist you in preparing your Will to ensure that your assets do not end up somewhere unexpected.
1 Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) s 70J.
2 Ibid s 70K.
3 Ibid s 70M.
4 Ibid s 70L.
5 Ibid s 70ZG.
6 Ibid s 70ZH.
7 Ibid s 70ZI.
8 Ibid s 70ZJ.
9 Ibid s 70ZK.
10 Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) s 70ZL.
11 Re an Application by State Trustees Ltd [2024] VSC 536.
Two key decisions in the last year should make employers wary of how far the general protections regime can be stretched. In Qantas Airways Limited v Transport Workers Union of Australia [2023] HCA 27 (Qantas), the High Court found that adverse action taken to prevent a person from exercising a future workplace right was unlawful. In Dabboussy v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils [2024] FCA 1074 (Dabboussy), the Federal Court of Australia has drawn attention to whether the dismissal of an employee a matter of hours before they met the service requirement to make an unfair dismissal claim could be a breach of the general protections regime under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). This article explores the implications of these cases for employers.
It has always been accepted that under the FW Act, a worker is protected from adverse action taken because they exercised a workplace right, propose to exercise a workplace right, or is able to exercise a workplace right. Two key decisions in the last year however have brought into the spotlight the need to be mindful of a fourth scenario; taking adverse action to prevent a person from exercising a future workplace right.
In the most recent of those two cases, the Federal Court has taken the interim view that adverse action taken to preclude a worker from meeting the service threshold to bring an unfair dismissal claim may breach the general protections provisions under the FW Act.
In Dabboussy, Mr Dabboussy was nearing the end of his first 12 months of employment with his employer, AFIC. AFIC was a small business employer with fewer than 15 employees, and therefore Mr Dabboussy would only become eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim upon 12 months of employment.
During the last few months of Mr Dabboussy’s employment, AFIC launched an investigation into allegations of serious misconduct against Mr Dabboussy. On 3 September 2024 at 4.40pm, and just 7 hours short of Mr Dabboussy’s 12-month milestone, AFIC terminated his employment effective immediately on the basis that the investigation determined that Mr Dabboussy was guilty of the misconduct, leaving Mr Dabboussy unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The problem? While Mr Dabboussy was jurisdictionally barred from bringing an unfair dismissal claim, he was not so prevented from arguing that his dismissal was effected to prevent him from becoming eligible to bring such a claim (i.e. adverse action for a protected reason). On the basis of the evidence before the Court (which we note was limited because Mr Dabboussy brought proceedings seeking an interim order), the Court agreed with Mr Dabboussy and cited the following reasons for their view:
The Court determined that there was a strong inference available that the Executive Committee meeting was convened with such haste, and relied upon what were only draft findings, to facilitate the termination of Mr Dabboussy’s employment before 4 September 2024, so as to deny him the opportunity to make a claim for unfair dismissal. The court reasoned that while AFIC had reasonable grounds for summarily terminating Mr Dabboussy’s employment, the timing of his dismissal was influenced by a desire to ensure that he could not make a claim for unfair dismissal.
The Court issued an interim order reinstating Mr Dabboussy to his position and restraining AFIC from terminating his employment without leave of the Court. At the time of writing this article, the Court has ordered Mr Dabboussy and AFIC to file further documents relating to the full hearing of Mr Dabboussy’s general protections claim.
Although this was an interim judgment and the Court will hear further from the parties in a full hearing, it is a foreseeable result of the High Court’s ruling in Qantas Airways Limited v Transport Workers Union of Australia [2023] HCA 27. In that decision, the High Court held that it will be unlawful for an employer to take adverse action to prevent employees from exercising a workplace right they will acquire in the future – even if that right is not presently held when the adverse action occurs.
This is exactly what happened in Dabboussy. The decision highlights that employers could face some risk if they dismiss an employee without reservation before they reach the unfair dismissal eligibility threshold (12 months for small businesses and 6 months for others). If an employer terminates the employment of an employee for the substantial and operative reason of depriving the employee of the right to make an unfair dismissal claim, there is a risk that the employer will be found to have breached the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
This decision does not mean that employers cannot terminate an employee’s employment during or at the end of a probation period. Rather, it suggests that employers may need to take additional steps during an employee’s probationary period to reduce the risks associated with terminating employment at the end of that period, or close to the end of it. This may involve implementing a probationary period shorter than the unfair eligibility threshold (provided this is compatible with an applicable industrial instrument), actively managing the probationary period from commencement of employment, and clearly documenting steps taken to manage unsatisfactory performance or other concerns well in advance of the probation period ending.
More broadly, the Dabboussy and Qantas decisions emphasise the need for employers to exercise caution when dealing with employees on the verge of acquiring workplace rights. These decisions focus on unlawful adverse action designed to prevent access to the unfair dismissal regime and the ability to engage in protected industrial action. There are other examples where unlawful adverse action may be used to prevent the exercise of a future workplace right. This includes, but is not limited to the following example: an employer suspects an employee is pregnant and terminates their employment for the substantial or operative reason to prevent that employee from gaining access to unpaid parental leave under the Fair Work Act.
Our Workplace Relations team are here to help you navigate the complexities of the general protections regime and to ensure you are meeting your obligations under the Fair Work Act. We can provide practical advice and guidance, assist with decision-making processes that may adversely affect employees and help employers respond to general protections claims.
In recent years, Australia has observed an increase in “grey divorce,” referring to the breakdown of marriages among couples aged 50 and older. This trend reflects broader global patterns and poses unique challenges and considerations. We explore the reasons behind the rise in grey divorces, the specific issues faced by older couples and the implications for their financial and emotional well-being.
Grey divorce has been on the rise in Australia, mirroring trends observed in other developed countries. Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) indicate a significant increase in the divorce rate among older age groups. Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:
Divorcing later in life presents distinct challenges that differ from those faced by younger couples:
The legal and financial implications of grey divorce are significant and require careful consideration and planning:
With the cost of living rising, and residential house prices soaring, it is not surprising that parents are now more frequently providing financial assistance to their adult children to help secure their children’s financial security.
Although it is understandable for parents to have a desire to provide that security for their children, when that adult child is in a relationship and separates from their spouse, that financial assistance may cause a great deal of stress for the parents who have invested significant funds, which may now be subject to a family law claim by the adult child’s spouse and a question will loom as to whether the parent can recover the funds that were provided to the adult child.
Given the complexities involved in grey divorce, seeking professional guidance is critical. Our Family Law team at Moores works closely with our Estate Planning team as well as accountants, financial advisors, counsellors and other health professionals to provide support and advice to help navigate the legal, financial and emotional challenges that older separating couples face.
If you require our assistance and would like to have a confidential conversation with an experienced family lawyer please contact our office on (03) 9843 2129.
Moores has ranked as a ‘First Tier’ Law Firm for Victoria in both the ‘Wills & Estates Litigation‘ and ‘Wills, Estates & Succession Planning‘ categories for the eighth year running.
In addition, Jennifer Dixon, Lachlan McKenzie, Krista Fitzgerald and James Dimond have all featured as Leading Lawyers and Max Ezerins as Rising Star in the latest Doyle’s Guide. Recognised by their peers and referrers for their expertise in Wills & Estates Litigation and/or Wills, Estates and Succession Planning.
Our expert team is experienced in assisting families with complex Estate Planning arrangements as well as challenging and defending all manner of Disputes relating to Wills, Estates, Trusts, SMSF and Bequests.
For more information or to speak with one of our experienced lawyers, please do not hesitate to contact us.