On this page

Standard 3.2

Training and assessment is delivered to VET students by credentialled people with current skills and knowledge in training and assessment.

Performance Indicators

An NVR registered training organisation demonstrates: 

  1. training and assessment is only delivered by persons who hold the appropriate credentials for the delivery of training and assessment as specified in the Credential Policy; 
  2. where the Credential Policy permits a person to deliver any training or assessment under direction – the organisation has systems in place that ensure the person does not make assessment judgements and is delivering quality training and assessment; and 
  3. how it ensures all trainers and assessors undertake continuing professional development to maintain current skills and knowledge in training and assessment, including skills and knowledge relating to engaging and supporting VET students. 

  • You can demonstrate how your systems ensure that all persons involved in training and assessment always meet the requirements of the Credential Policy.
  • You can demonstrate that, where artificial intelligence (AI) tools assist with credential verification (e.g. document parsing, expiry alerts), human verification confirms trainers and assessors hold the appropriate credentials as specified in the Credential Policy. For example:
    • an automated register flags credential currency dates and alerts for refresher requirements, with staff verifying any anomalies
    • identity and credential checks are cross-referenced by staff against source records (not just AI summaries), with escalation for outliers.
  • You can demonstrate your mechanisms for ensuring people do not perform training and assessment tasks beyond the scope of their credentials.
  • You can demonstrate how you authenticate the relevant credentials held by your trainers and assessors.
  • Where a person is working under direction, you can demonstrate:
    • that the supervision and guidance arrangements are reflective of the skills and knowledge of the person
    • how you assure the quality of their practice
    • how you ensure the person is not making assessment judgements
    • how you ensure that their supervisor has sufficient support to perform the supervisory role and is appropriately skilled and qualified.
  • You can demonstrate how staff involved in training and assessment maintain up-to-date trainer and assessor skills, for example by:
    • participating in internal or external courses, workshops, industry seminars, and conferences
    • demonstrating recent completion of a higher-level qualification in training and assessment practice
    • undertaking activities that allow them to maintain their understanding of current industry practice
    • accessing relevant publications related to VET and competency-based training and assessment
    • participating in learning networks
    • taking part in validation or moderation activities
    • shadowing or working closely with other trainers and assessors under a mentoring arrangement.
  • Where relevant to the training product, you can show how professional development builds AI literacy to help trainers and assessors maintain current skills in training and assessment and enhance student support and engagement. For example, assessors are trained to recognise inappropriate AI use and apply consistent principles when judging AI-supported evidence.  

  • Not having a system in place to authenticate the training and assessment credentials held by your trainers and assessors.
  • Not applying robust human checks to AI-assisted credential verification to detect forged or expired credentials.
  • Not regularly reviewing the skills and knowledge of the persons working under direction to determine if their level of supervisory arrangements and guidance requires adjustment.
  • Not systematically reviewing the quality of work produced by those persons working under direction.
  • Not ensuring that supervisors have adequate skills, experience and qualifications to provide appropriate support and supervision to those working under direction.
  • Only providing trainers and assessors with access to professional development on an ad-hoc basis with no consideration as to whether the professional development is the most suitable to understand current and emerging training practices. 

 

Standard 3.3

Training and assessment is delivered by persons with current industry skills and knowledge relevant to the training product.

Performance indicators

An NVR registered training organisation demonstrates:

  1. all persons delivering training or assessment for, or on behalf of the organisation:
    1. have industry competencies, skills and knowledge that are relevant to, and at least to the level of, the training product being delivered or assessed by the person; and
    2. maintain an understanding of current industry practices relevant to the training and assessment being delivered by the person;
  2. where it engages experts for the purposes of delivering training, it does so:
    1. by reference to the requirements of the training product or the specific VET student cohort; and
    2. in response to a specific need for the expert to be engaged;
  3. it has a system for ensuring:
    1. experts have industry competencies, skills, knowledge and specialised industry or subject matter expertise that is directly relevant to the training product they are delivering;
    2. experts are only authorised to work under the direction of a person with the appropriate credentials to provide direction on the delivery of training and assessment, as specified in the Credential Policy;
    3. where the expert is involved in assessment judgement – they conduct the assessment alongside the trainer or assessor; and
    4. the training or assessment the expert is involved in delivering is subject to oversight by the organisation. 

  • You can demonstrate the systems you use to assess the appropriateness, relevance and currency of each trainer and assessor’s industry competencies, skills and knowledge.  
  • You can demonstrate how you authenticate that all your trainers and assessors (including industry experts and those engaged by your third parties) have industry competencies, skills and knowledge that are relevant to, and at least to the level of, the training product they are delivering and assessing, and where AI tools form part of current practice, can use, interpret and explain those tools appropriately.
  • You can demonstrate that all trainers and assessors, and those working under direction, are maintaining an understanding of current industry practices, for example by:
    • volunteering or working part-time in the industry area
    • undertaking accredited training, or higher-level qualifications, relevant to the industry area
    • belonging to industry associations
    • engaging with industry (for example, through discussions with employers or attending industry networking events)
    • subscribing to industry journals and newsletters
    • staying informed about changes to technology
    • keeping up to date with changes to industry-specific legislation and licencing requirements.
  • You can show how your industry engagement practices are used to determine the currency of trainer and assessor industry competencies and whether there are any gaps to be addressed.
  • Where an industry expert is engaged to support trainers and assessors, you can demonstrate:
    • that experts work under the direction of a qualified person and work alongside a qualified assessor where they are supporting in making the assessment judgement
    • how experts are used to enhance the real-world application of training and assessment
    • that your oversight of the expert ensures the quality of training and assessment. 

  • Not having mechanisms in place for maintaining regular and meaningful industry engagement that confirms current industry relevance of trainer and assessor competencies, skills and knowledge.
  • Failing to ensure that each person delivering training and assessment has the relevant industry competencies, skills and knowledge, aligned to all the unit of competency requirements that they deliver and assess (where the specific units of competency delivered are not held).
  • Allowing training and assessment to be conducted by trainers and assessors that do not maintain an understanding of current industry practices.
  • Not continuing to review the trainers’ and assessors’ industry competencies, skills and knowledge after the completion of the onboarding process.
  • Failing to assess industry experts’ competencies, skills and knowledge to determine relevancy and suitability.
  • Not ensuring an expert is training under direction of, and assessing alongside, a qualified trainer and assessor.
  • Failing to document where industry experts have assisted in the assessment judgement process.  

 

Self-assurance questions

  1. How do you verify that each person delivering training and assessment for your RTO is appropriately credentialled? 
  2. When delivering offshore, how do you ensure your in-country trainers and assessors have the right credentials, capability and presence? ​
  3. How do you ensure that you are engaging with industry regularly to assure yourself that trainers and assessors have current industry skills?
  4. How do you know that your system for monitoring those working under direction is effective?
  5. How do you monitor and regularly review the performance of trainers and assessors to identify opportunities for professional development?
  6. How do you identify the types of industry competencies, skills and knowledge relevant to each training product on your scope of registration?
  7. How do you identify and address gaps in your trainers and assessors’ industry competencies, skills and knowledge?
  8. How do you ensure staff understand and apply your organisation’s policies on AI use in their day-to-day roles, including maintaining appropriate visibility of trainers’ and assessors’ use of AI where it may affect content, assessment evidence, feedback or assessment judgements, and recognising when AI outputs are incomplete, inaccurate or not fit for purpose?
  9. How do you ensure your use of industry experts adds value to training and assessment outcomes? 

Case study

Verifying trainer and assessor skills and knowledge 

ZZZ Training Pty Ltd (ZZZ) has recruited Jane Smith to deliver and assess BSB50420 Diploma of Leadership and Management. As part of its trainer and assessor credential verification process, the RTO verified that Jane held a TAE40122 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment and confirmed the qualification’s authenticity with the issuing provider and the USI Register.  

ZZZ then undertook additional due diligence by reviewing ASQA's Qualification Integrity Regulatory Action webpage to determine whether the RTO that issued Jane’s TAE qualification had been subject to qualification cancellation action. The issuing provider was not listed, and a screenshot of the search results was retained on Jane's personnel file as evidence – in line with ASQA's expectation that RTOs ensure trainers and assessors are not relying on qualifications that have been cancelled through regulatory action.  

ZZZ’s Recruitment Manager also reviewed and collected evidence of Jane’s current training and assessment skills, participation in assessment validation activities, attendance at VET professional development activities and recent industry (management) experience. The Recruitment Manager recorded this evidence in a trainer and assessor competency matrix which the RTO maintains as an ongoing register of skills and experience and future professional development to ensure ongoing compliance with their regulatory obligations.  

  1. How many hours of professional development per year would be considered appropriate to maintain relevant and current industry competencies? 

    Each industry has its own characteristics and as such, the volume of hours of professional development needed to maintain currency will vary. Engaging with industry, employers and community representatives will assist a provider in determining the volume and depth of professional development required to maintain currency.

     

  2. The 2025 Standards indicate trainers or assessors require ‘industry competencies, skills and knowledge’. What does ‘competencies’ refer to?  

    Standard 3.3 requires that all trainers and assessors must have industry competencies, skills and knowledge that are relevant to, and at least to the level of, the training product being delivered and assessed. ‘At least to the level of’ refers to the level of skills and knowledge required for each training product, rather than equivalence of the AQF level. ‘Competencies’ is not a defined term in the legislation – as such, a plain language interpretation should be applied such as - the knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviours that contribute to an individual’s performance. While holding the training product is the most direct way of evidencing relevant industry competencies, skills and knowledge, this could also be demonstrated through a combination of formal and informal learning, skills and knowledge gained through other means such as paid or volunteer work.

     

  3. Is ‘co-assessment’ allowed under the 2025 Standards?  

    No. ‘Co-assessment’ where one person holds the TAE qualification but does not hold the industry competencies relevant to the training product being assessed and another person holds only the industry competencies but no TAE, is not allowed. Trainers and assessors must have both the TAE qualification and industry competencies relevant to the training product being assessed.

     

  4. Does a fully qualified trainer and assessor that is providing direction (for example, to an industry expert) also need to have industry competence and currency?  

    Yes. It is critical that trainers and assessors (and any experts engaged to support trainers and assessors) have current industry competencies, skills and knowledge relevant to the training product. Where industry experts are involved in training and assessment, the trainer and/or assessor they are working under the direction of must be fully qualified, meet the thresholds required by the Standards and be responsible for making the assessment judgement. It is important that the credential policy be read in conjunction with Standards 3.2 and 3.3, specifically 3.3 performance indicator 2 (c) (ii) which states that: 

    ‘An NVR registered training organisation demonstrates: it has a system in place for ensuring:  

    ii. experts are only authorised to work under the direction of a person with the appropriate credentials to provide direction on the delivery of training and assessment, as specified in the Credential Policy’.  

    Further, the trainer and assessor providing direction must meet Standard 3.3 (a) (i): 

    ‘all persons delivering training or assessment for, or on behalf of the organisation:  

    i. have industry competencies, skills and knowledge that are relevant to, and at least to the level of, the training product being delivered or assessed by the person;’  

    A provider engaging an industry expert to work under the direction of a person that does not meet the requirements of Standard 3.3, would not be meeting that Standard.

     

  5. When would providers use an industry expert?  

    Engaging industry experts to support training and assessment and provide practical insight into real workplace settings can add value, variety and interest to the training program. Providers might also engage an industry expert to meet additional assessor requirements specified in a training product.

     

  6. What is considered an acceptable timeframe of supervision for a person working under direction? 

    If the person is actively working towards a credential (either TAE40122 or TAE50122) then they have two years to complete the qualification. Over this period, the provider must demonstrate that the person is working under the direction of a fully qualified trainer or assessor. An industry expert must also work under the direction of a fully qualified trainer or assessor. The level of supervision required will depend on the person under direction. If it is an industry expert, the level of direction may remain constant over time. However, for the person working towards a training and assessment credential, their level of direction may decrease over time as they progress through the qualification.

     

  7. Can a person working under direction make assessment judgements?  

    A person working under direction is not permitted to make assessment judgements (per Standard 3.2 (2) (b)). Under the instrument, assessment judgement means the determination of whether competency has been achieved by a VET student. A person working under direction, such as an industry expert or an individual working towards a training and assessment credential:  

    1. must have industry competencies, skills and knowledge that are relevant to, and at least to the level of, the training product being delivered or assessed by the person; and
    2. may help collect assessment evidence, however this evidence must be handed to a fully qualified assessor to make the assessment judgement.

     

  8. Should trainer and assessor industry currency be demonstrated at the qualification level or for each unit of competency being delivered and assessed?  

    Trainers and assessors need to show current industry skills and knowledge that are directly relevant to each unit they deliver or assess. Industry currency must align with the specific skills, tasks and contexts required by each unit. For example, if a qualification covers multiple distinct skill areas, the provider needs evidence that the trainer and assessor is current in each relevant area they teach, not just generally experienced in the industry.  

    From a compliance perspective, there should be clear mapping between trainer currency and unit requirements, showing that training and assessment are informed by current industry practice.