Notes from the ASQA Sector Workshop - Brisbane 11 March 2026

Important disclaimer:
This page contains information as remembered and recorded by M. Charlton at the Brisbane ASQA Workshop on 11 March 2026. Results from polls refers to this audience only. Other sessions in other locations may have had different commentary around the examples and answers to questions from the audience. Images are of slides shown in the room (some as shared by Vanessa S.). Some notes below are transmitted in dot point form. This page is not intended as advice or to replace the experience of attending a workshop, but to "share the notes" for those who may be unable to attend any of the venues and dates on the schedule.


ASQA provided an informative summary of information to the audience on regulatory policy and sector performance to date under the 2025 Standards for RTOs.

How providers are feeling

Perhaps not surprisingly, providers at the Brisbane workshop on Wednesday morning said they felt most confident with Quality Area 1 - Training and Assessment (38%). Followed by Quality Area 2 - VET Student Support (26%), Credential Policy (21%), Compliance Requirements (9%), Quality Area 4 - Governance (6%). It was surprising to see VET Workforce (Quality Area 3) come in with only 1% of respondents saying they were most confident with that area.


In contrast, according to the number of questions to ASQA about it, the Credential Policy is the area in which providers seem least confident. Whereas in the room on the day, the area of least confidence was Quality Area 4 - Governance. 


Other information about regulator's activities

ASQA has noticed "churn" in the market. While RTO figures sit at roughly 4,000, this is not necessarily the same 4,000 over time as providers exit the sector and "newbies" enter. There is a waiting list for "newbies"

From July 2025 until 30 January 2026, 89 performance reviews have been undertaken ("audits") with a 62% compliance rate

There are 212 serious matters currently under investigation by the enforcement team. This is the team that recommends qualifications cancellations (due to critical non-compliance and links to issues such as fraud, identity theft and/or organised crime). Since late 2025, over 36 thousand students have received a letter of intent to cancel; over 33 thousand cancellations have been executed. The enforcement team understands the "knock on" implications of cancellations and will only recommend this action when it is not safe - for the people holding the qualifications; for the people they service in the jobs.

ASQA's current areas of focus are listed below. Industries with inherently high risk are always on the radar - as they need to be sure "an electrician can wire a house; a pilot can fly a plane". Other high-risk priorities may arise due to government agenda e.g. ECEC

The intention of the new Standards is to increase national productivity through reduced regulatory burden


Update from the Registration and Performance Branch

Audits

Clarification on the difference in "audit" versus "performance assessment":

ASQA uses the term "performance assessment" to undertake the activity most of us will recognise as "an audit".  However, for ASQA, the distinction is that an audit is a comprehensive assessment of all of the Standards; a performance review is more targeted and smaller in scope, including any information received via Tip Offs

The team will notify an RTO of when the activity is to commence and what they will be looking at

The 2025 SRTOs are new for providers as well as for ASQA teams; gaps may occur in collection of evidence and if so, where identified, ASQA will re-contact providers for more

The decision finding on a performance assessment is not "compliant" or not, it is "Meets Requirements" or "Does Not Meet Requirements"

Performance monitoring activity does not result in a decision

(See more information on the ASQA website about:


Costs

Currently, the timeframes and therefore costs for ASQA audits is unknown until the end when providers receive the invoice. The new approach to fees has four categories to give structure and indication of activities and cost.

A micro assessment is where the issue is “black and white”, for example, a provider did not submit their Annual Declaration on Compliance on time. The majority of ASQA’s activity falls into categories 2 and 3

(For more information about the proposed new fee structures, see the Cost Recovery Information Session on ASQA’s YouTube channel)

 

New Standards Insights


Student wellbeing requirements are typically well-understood with systems for application of the requirement in place

“Majority” of training and assessment is done by trainers and assessors holding the appropriate TAE credentials

 


Assessment continues to be an issue

76% of assessment was of a poor-quality standard, and this is consistent with previous years.

(The slide below is from a 2017 ASQA provider session; see the consistency in main issues:

 )


 

Poor quality assessment systems or practices

Unfair assessment

  • Reasonable adjustment not used or not used properly
  • Students are not receiving meaningful feedback – so they don’t know how to progress toward competency
  • Lack of flexibility in assessment processes; allowing different and legitimate ways to demonstrate competency


Assessment tools

  • Tools do not align to the actual knowledge, skills and attitudes (competencies) required
    • Example was given of an RTO that clustered 7 units and had one knowledge question meant to apply to the knowledge component for each of the 7 units – impossible to meet requirements and question was too general to elicit any meaningful evidence
  • Providers must ensure ALL of the unit requirements are met


Reliability

  • Inconsistent decision making occurring between assessors and across locations
    • i.e. students in the same course but at different campus locations are being marked differently because assessors are “applying their own judgement, rather than following a standardised benchmark”
  • Also, gaps in academic integrity and authenticity checks
    • Example was given of a first aid class submitting identical answers – right down to the same spelling mistakes
    • Or the case where photocopied evidence was submitted across the board but the student name was not changed

 

Tips to do better


Contextualise assessment tools

Remember, reasonable adjustment must not weaken the integrity of competency

  • For example, an RTO asked if it was ok to allow a student to do their assessment for “Work in a team” alone. The answer is no as there can’t be a team of one and still display the required skills and knowledge for working with others


See it to assess it – if the unit has direct observation requirements, this must occur. Assessors must see work placement evidence

This must be genuine, recent and verifiable work placement evidence: Relying on logbooks, signatures and supervisor notes alone leads to compliance issues

Consistency – fairness and reliability between assessors is negatively impacted when assessors are relying on their own judgement rather than the standard for making decisions (i.e. marking guide)

Protect the process by being alert to contract cheating, identity fraud and artificial intelligence (generative AI)

Meet ALL requirements of a unit ( note >> use your mapping document for this and verify it is accurate)

When it comes to mandated tools that must be used for licencing requirements: some of the unit of competency may not be covered by those tools; create a supplementary tool to ensure adequate assessment can occur

 

Poor quality training


Issues include:

Training product requirements are not being met; compressed time for instruction; feedback not stepped out to assist the student

Ways the training is actually being delivered does not match with what was initially described/communicated to students

The structure and pace of training is not fit-for-purpose. The Volume of Learning applied does not match the AQF requirement; duration is too short; not enough time allowed for students to practice the learning before moving into assessment

  • An example was given of a first aid student enrolled into 5 units to be completed in 1 day
    • The RTO in question said it was an administrative error made by their daughter (who turned out to be underage and should not have been processing the files)
  • Another example from the ECEC space where the RTO also owned centres and employed full time staff and enrolled them in a qualification. But instead of giving them supervised practice and feedback, sent them on their way to do self-learning with no workplace visits scheduled for deliberate training or coaching


Tips to do better


Ensure training is designed for every student cohort – expecting to deliver the same training to everyone leads to problems. It must be contextualised and adapted and delivered in ways that suits the cohort needs

The AQF is not optional

Meet the industry mark – meet what’s happening in industry now. Expectation is to do this so that students are properly prepared for qualification and licensing outcomes

Online delivery must genuinely support outcomes. There are some training products where online simply cannot be used; it is not suitable for all training products

Continuous improvement is an ASQA focus. It is mandatory to use feedback to iterate on ways of doing things to always improve. Feedback is not just from students, use trainer feedback and other stakeholder feedback too

While a TAS is no longer mandated, the RTO’s approach to training and assessment must still be documented. How do you go about training and assessment at your RTO? What’s the evidence of what you say? Where is that evidence?  (See the DDEER model and article for more information to support this point)

Reminder note to RTOs that purchasing policy and procedure systems from consultants or as “off-the-shelf” products can lead to issues; RTO has the responsibility to ensure that all documentation is directly relevant to their own operational circumstances. If you must purchase an off-the-shelf policy and procedure pack, it’s only ever going to be a starting point

 

Continuous improvement


Major issue is that RTOs have a continuous improvement spreadsheet but the system is not implemented or monitored

RTOs require continuous testing and adjustments. ASQA is often noticing reactive systems, meaning continuous improvement action is only taken when something goes wrong

Again, mention was made cautioning RTOs against purchasing policies and procedures over writing their own, or buying off-the-shelf systems for continuous improvement without making it suitable for their own specific context

ASQA are looking for evidence that there is active implementation in place => how does it work in your RTO?

The 2025 Standards are explicit and make it clear: the RTO remains fully responsible

Conduct regular monitoring, data and feedback reviews; step in early when issues are identified

Third-party arrangements bring risk; even bigger risk when no monitoring of the third party is taking place

There may be potentially missed opportunities coming in via feedback, complaints, appeals

Do something with the information!


Tips to do better


Continuous improvement applies accord the whole of the organisation

Generic templates “can only take you so far”

 

Unsuitable or unqualified trainers/assessors

Issues include:

Trainers hold a qualification but it’s not directly relevant to what they are delivering

Currency has slipped; currency cannot be proven for all of the requirements in a unit

  • An example was given of a trainer/assessor who had supplied a screenshot of a WhatsApp conversation about how they had helped organise soup for an event and they had prepared food for a birthday party. On its own, this is not evidence of industry currency in commercial cookery

Trainers are getting stretched beyond capacity

  • Example was given where evidence was provided which showed the same trainer/assessor was allocated to multiple classes at the same time across one RTO or across multiple RTOs. In some cases, scheduling showed them to be in multiple states at the same time

Gaps exist in systems to verify trainer/assessor competencies. These are coming up too often as:

  • Incomplete
  • Out of date
  • Not checked at all

Just listing “resume on file” or a certificate in a folder is not enough. Must have robust and ongoing checks in place to confirm all staff are continuously meeting the requirements for the particular training product

There is an issue with the rate of change and the rate of ongoing PD to keep up with change. VET and other industries are moving at a fast pace. All trainers/assessors must be given the opportunity to stay current and stay connected with real-world practice

When PD is sporadic or treated as optional it becomes difficult for staff to deliver high-quality and industry-relevant training

There at times inadequate supervision of people working under direction. Supervision must be active, meaningful and documented.

In several cases the supervision was not happening at all or not happening in a satisfactory way that ensured quality, or the safety and support for learners


Tips to do better

 

  

Trainers and assessors must know and understand own boundaries; should only be delivering and assessing units for which they genuinely hold the right industry competency, skills and knowledge; general experience is not enough and does not equal competencies required. Competence must align with specific knowledge and skills of the unit

If an RTO takes on board this information and reviews trainer/assessor competencies and sees there is a gap – get someone else as the trainer with the gaps cannot deliver/assess until they are confirmed as having all of the competencies required

Must keep skills and knowledge fresh; having experience from many years ago is insufficient because industries evolve rather quickly

Regular and meaningful PD must be undertaken – not just a one off.

It may include working in industry to maintain skills; may include other complementary things beyond that

Do due diligence on industry experts. Industry experts can bring valuable insight to support delivery and assessment but they must be properly vetted and suitable. Importantly, they must work alongside a qualified trainer/assessor and not independently.

Must also document how experts contribute to assessment decisions. Proper oversight expected

Note that industry currency varies by sector. The example was given comparing IT to marriage celebrancy

 

Update from enforcement team

Nature of serious matters highlight critically non-compliant RTOs have intent to defraud. They are engaging in practices such as:

  • “Cash for quals”
  • Third-party arrangements with no monitoring
  • Poor RPL practices, including:
    • No assessment taking place
    • Asking for a resume, 100pts of ID, a completed form and issuing a qualification
  • Using unsuitable, unqualified and/or non-existent trainers

 

Other updates and answers to questions

New provider portal to replace asqanet due November 2026

 

Risk-based auditing: audit / performance assessment / monitoring

For example, an RTO reduces their scope by 95%. ASQA monitors this, looks to confirm financial viability.

Anything as part of the current regulatory campaign = “we’ll have a look”

 

Call out cheap and nasty

Noticing courses advertised as “too quick, too cheap”. Suggestion to providers to call it out – tell students that if the course looks quick, cheap and easy it’s probably too good to be true. They’re probably not training properly, not assessing properly, not offering required work placements and if you want to keep your job (i.e. not have the risk of your qualification being cancelled at some point) go with the provider who isn’t the quickest and cheapest

 

How do you determine shortened course duration?

No set formula – RTOs to work it out based on context. Look at: your delivery, your students, industry, whether assessments can be completed in time (how many extensions were needed to be granted?). Answers to these also feed your continuous improvement

Get AQF guidance from the JSCs if unsure about how to determine shortened course durations. What does industry expect and can your current duration meet that? Consider: Have you adequately considered the requirements for competency? Have you documented WHY your decision is what it is?

 

On the issue of cancelled qualifications, what’s the RTO’s responsibility?

Monitor and authenticate

For RTO staff, if affected by a qualification cancellation, pull them out of training effectively immediately

Conduct a risk assessment on the competencies already issued by them to determine next steps. I.e. potential need to contact those students who have been impacted because the trainer is now without proper qualifications to train/assess

For Credit Transfers issued, remove those as it is not safe

Of the already 33k+ cancellations there were some TAE qualifications included although most were CHC and licenced trades e.g. construction

Question about exact time for cancelled qualifications to be removed from the USI register was “taken on notice”. (Of note, we did speak to the USI office to get their input on this)

Privacy means ASQA cannot provide a list or write to RTOs to advise that a trainer has had their TAE cancelled

Issue raised that some students (with cancelled quals) are using their USI transcript to try to legitimately complete an enrolment and access funding. However, because the USI still shows they have done a course, they can’t access the funding because the cancelled qual is still listed. ASQA understands they’ve already “done their dough” on the initial qualification, potentially lost income because they’ve lost their job because of the cancellation and are hamstrung to try and access funding to do another course with a legitimate provider. ASQA is assisting some students in this regard

 

Re-registration

No definitive answer given to the question about “what will ASQA look at for re-registration”. The following information was provided:

ASQA may engage once or more during the RTO’s registration period.

Used to be that impending renewal would trigger an audit and re-registration would depend on whether any non-compliance was identified, with registration then pending on performance assessment or requests for more information.

 

Issuing Credit Transfers when something doesn’t “feel” right

Use professional judgement for authentication process. If you have any doubt, go to RPL.

RTOs can safeguard themselves. “If in doubt, do an assessment”

 

Use of AI – non-compliance against the 2025 SRTOs 

There will be revised Practice Guides (v2) coming about mid-year. These will include non-compliant use of AI against the requirements

 

Co-assessment is NOT a “thing”

Co-assessment is a myth; it’s not a “thing” – despite some companion volumes from some JSCs suggesting otherwise. ONLY the fully qualified trainer/assessor is to be making assessment decisions

 

JSC activity

JSCs are ramping up – expect about 60 new training products to hit about mid-year

 

Reminder about professional development

Must be TAE currency and vocational competency currency

 

ADC Season

ASQA said they prefer to see honest and genuine rather than false declarations (on compliance)

Share if something is underway – be “genuine and honest”

People who put a dot or a dash in the mandatory text fields on the declaration form to force the form progression (instead of writing a proper answer) are drawing attention to themselves. As are those who complete the form in record time. ASQA can monitor time from email sent, email opened, declaration completed

 

Question about why antisemitism is included in the Annual Declaration on Compliance this year

And does this elevate one group to a higher status than other? (Why single out one group for special consideration?)

ASQA: consider the inclusion of protection against antisemitism under requirements for student wellbeing, diversity, inclusion to connect it to the Standards for RTOs

Plus, it’s a government priority right now so it will come into focus

Goal is to ensure all students feel safe and supported.

Consider: would all RTO staff understand how to escalate an issue around this if it arose?

 

What is ASQA auditing against?

It’s not just the Standards – the three items that make up the 2025 Standards for RTOs:

  1. Outcome Standards
  2. Compliance Standards
  3. Credential Policy

Also, the NVR Act 2011. Recommended that all providers read this. And read to understand their conditions of registration, especially 22a “commitment and capability to deliver quality vocational education and training”

CRICOS providers reminded to be across ESOS changes (Education Services for Overseas Students).

(See information on the Department of Education website for more on this)

 

DRAFT Principles for Responsible Use of AI

 ASQA shared their draft principles for responsible use of AI. These will not be additional legislation but will tie into existing requirements under the Standards





Based on the identified issues in the above, the following Skills Education products may be of help: