Angela Connell-Richards: 0:27

Okay, welcome everybody to the RTO Superhero Podcast with my special guest, maycek, who's going to be joining me for the whole year reviewing the new, revised standards. Maycek, give us a little background about who you are and what you've been doing, and I found out recently that you started as a baby in an RTO. Give me a background, indeed.

Maciek Fibrick: 0:50

Look, my background is quite extensive. As a 46-year-old, I think I can still already call myself a veteran of the industry. This is now my 27th year in the industry, starting out back in 1999 when we started my first RTO with my mother in the beauty industry. So that was the Sydney College of Skincare, back then back in Hornsby. So ever since then I've done basically everything when it comes to running RTOs, building RTOs, growing RTOs, and now here I am helping consultant coach. So yeah, it's been an amazing journey over those years with a lot of changes, and here we are again. Here we are again, More changes.

Angela Connell-Richards: 1:35

So yes, so this year for the RTO Superhero Podcast we've got a theme of the new standards and what that impact is going to be on RTOs and basically how I wanted the podcast series to go is like popping in on a conversation between two experienced consultants, which we do quite regularly, and when we do, we get quite passionate about what we talk about. So we're going to let the passion fly. Does that sound good?

Maciek Fibrick: 2:08

That's absolutely brilliant, bring it on Excellent, excellent, All right.

Angela Connell-Richards: 2:12

So to start with, if you've had your head in the sand, we have some new standards that are coming out, and in our last podcast, I was with head guest speaker Lauren Hollows and we talked about whether you should be preparing for the new standards now, and we both agreed absolutely yes. Maychek was just telling me that he actually hasn't started yet.

Maciek Fibrick: 2:39

Let's clarify that I have started. I'm just waiting for further guidance from ASQA and if you haven't seen the new guides that ASQA have released, they are released on the ASQA website and if you have seen them, hopefully you're as disappointed as I am.

Angela Connell-Richards: 3:04

So they've uploaded new practice guides. I against each of the quality areas, and the latest ones that came out were on student support. Uh, they still haven't released anything on the um vet workforce yet and uh, yeah, it's a. It's, yeah, it's a sort of a guide. It's not a user guide. They're apparently going to do a user guide as well. These practice guides are separate yeah, look it's, it's again.

Maciek Fibrick: 3:34

Without without sort of being too critical, the way that I've sort of looked at it is they've taken the performance indicators, put it into chat, gpt and say write, write me a paragraph or two about each one. They really haven't given any substance to what an RTO really should look for. They've got some known risks, et cetera. But I really wish that they'd started to provide a little bit more substance, because that's what everyone has sort of been waiting on, to say, okay, what do I need to do to update my policies or my procedures? Uh, what can I do, uh, to make them more, I guess, aligned to the, to the revised standards and, more importantly, especially around those areas of you know we'll talk about, I guess, the the biggest changes, but well-being support and those well-being support services that they are now talking about in the standards. But what does that actually mean? And there's nothing mentioned in those user guides from, or the practice guides from, asqa.

Angela Connell-Richards: 4:37

Yeah, what you have to actually have in place now. And what does it mean? Like we've always, we've had support services for quite some time in the legislation, but what does it mean with the addition of well-being and um and, in particular, mental health support as well?

Maciek Fibrick: 4:55

yeah, yeah, yeah I agree, I sort of I I used to sort of joke and I know it's, you know I'm not a small, small human being, but it's like so. So at what point do you turn around and say, well, I need dietary support, or I need mental health support, or I need emotional support. Do I do I bring my you know? Do I need to have dogs in in the classroom now to support people? So there's a lot of um. I think the one thing that I was looking for from asper this time around, and and in credit to to industry um, as you'll know, um, this is the longest we've had, I guess, consistency in any standards. It's 10 years since we've had a change. So credit where credit's due in that respect that we've had this much consistency. But I would have liked to think that if they're putting in such significant interpretive clauses that there would be a little bit more there to work off, especially if it's a practice guide or how they're going to expect RTOs to be audited in the future.

Angela Connell-Richards: 5:51

Yeah, I'm wondering if they're, because they've released the feedback, complaints and appeals, information and training support, but nothing around wellbeing. I wonder if that's still coming. It could be because I'm sure there's got to be more for all of the other areas as well. That can't be it.

Maciek Fibrick: 6:13

I really hope not, yeah.

Angela Connell-Richards: 6:14

Yeah, because what about First Nations? Because that's not in there either. No.

Maciek Fibrick: 6:20

No, and I still recall when ASQA came first, when ASQA, I guess, took over the delegated authority or delegation in all the states except WA and Victoria, where the commissioner at the time said we're a regulator, we're not an educator, and that didn't last very long. It really suddenly became okay. We see that we do need to educate. And again, credit where credit's due. Asqa has been doing a good job from an education perspective in the last couple of years.

Angela Connell-Richards: 6:50

And it was actually the government that told ASQA you have to educate.

Maciek Fibrick: 6:55

Yeah, yeah. So I think let's hope that that aspect continues going and these are just the first draft of many that will provide feedback or provide guidance to RTOs, so that we don't have the first six to 12 months of auditing being an interpretive nightmare.

Angela Connell-Richards: 7:18

Yeah, yeah.

Maciek Fibrick: 7:19

And that never happens, does it?

Angela Connell-Richards: 7:21

No, not at all. I remember my very first ASQA audit. So we just moved from the state regulators to the federal regulators and it took about four months from when they took over before they started auditing and my very first audit. I actually knew the auditor. She'd worked for VTAB, which was the New South Wales State Authority, and she said at the start of the meeting Angela, as a consultant, you are not allowed to answer questions on behalf of the clients. You can take notes. You know the normal rhetoric. And then halfway through she was going through some of the standards and went is that right? Angela and I went is this such a question?

Maciek Fibrick: 8:09

I very much have recalled many of those experiences as well. I think the only takeaway from that is at least consultants like us that value our clients' understanding and knowledge of growth. We're ordereditors. See what we've tried to achieve with the clients. That it's not us, it's them, and we're just in the background, almost interpreting certain questions that auditors have that sense where, or assessors I should say I apologize that they have that sense of not necessarily trust, but respect for us as well, that we've been around long enough, that we have our own opinion to share as well.

Angela Connell-Richards: 8:54

Yeah, yeah, definitely Now. So so far we've got practice guides on the outcome standards. We've still got draft credential policy and draft compliance requirements, so who knows what's going to happen with those? I think there most probably will be some changes in the credential policy.

Maciek Fibrick: 9:16

So what are your thoughts on that? What are your thoughts on the non-existent really changes. There's a couple of nice ones that have been added.

Angela Connell-Richards: 9:23

Well, going backwards, going backwards and saying that, oh no, you don't need to get the latest TAE now, after everyone just went through the painful process of updating to the latest qualification, they're now going back. Now I understand why because a lot of trainers left because they didn't want to do the new qualification. But I think it's not really demonstrating that we are moving forward if you're telling trainers oh no, don't worry about upgrading your qualification, we'll just accept your old one.

Maciek Fibrick: 9:55

Yeah, look, I guess I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree. But, at the same time, how many industries do we know other than this where you are forced to go back and repeat the same qualification multiple times? And so I think there's a level of normality that's been introduced through this policy as well, to say, look, if you studied and did your Cert IV back in 2010 but haven't done any professional development or maintained your currency in the industry, then you're still going to be non-compliant. But this concept of having to go back and people call it an upgrade to, and they, but they're going from a cert for say 40110 to a 16, now to a 22.

Maciek Fibrick: 10:42

To me that's never been an upgrade, that's just been okay. Call me a bit, I guess a different opinion, but I think that's not an upgrade and it's a money grab in some respects. And I think that if you're going to go down the path of having had your Cert 4, say the 16 version, why not go and do your diploma and actually upgrade a qualification to the new diploma and do that as a pathway? But what I like about this is that it sort of normalises the fact that you can get a qualification and then the focus should be on you maintaining and updating your skills, whether that's personal or yeah, because we don't have a CPD program in this industry.

Angela Connell-Richards: 11:30

No. I think we should have one.

Maciek Fibrick: 11:33

I think we should as well, and so this to me is not, I guess, a bad thing that they've done this. There have been many whispers in the industry that part of this process was also to appease a particular large institution within our sector. I'm being very safe here.

Angela Connell-Richards: 11:56

A public one? Yes, a public one, maybe a public one yes.

Maciek Fibrick: 12:00

And there was a lot of call there to allow for that. But whichever way you look at it, I think it's not a bad idea to allow someone who's got an older qualification to just maintain their currency through professional development as well.

Angela Connell-Richards: 12:16

Yeah, and I think that needs to be a bit clearer in the credential policy around PD. So, yes, you can hold the old qualification, but you need to be doing PD. And what is that PD? How many hours? Like a professional development point system.

Maciek Fibrick: 12:37

Correct, and I mean that in itself is a management nightmare as well. But I think there definitely needs to be some guidance as to how a quality RTO looks at PD, and is it, you know, one session a week, one session a month, two sessions a year, whatever it is, and how to, I guess, interpret what PD is best suited for your workforce as well, because, you know, doing a two-hour seminar once every six months to me is not professional development, that's just a loophole that you're using to try and maintain compliance. So yeah, but I do like the other thing that they've added to that credential policy is now that they've clarified, with validation, what additional credentials can be used for validation, because the current standards really stipulate not Schedule 1 of the standards, but you have to have your Cert 4. So anyone who had a diploma or anything wasn't actually allowed to do validation unless they had the Cert IV 40116.

Angela Connell-Richards: 13:41

Yeah, yeah, it was pretty crazy where it was before and it made it very difficult, in particular for small RTOs, to get validation done.

Maciek Fibrick: 13:49

Yeah, yeah, so all in all, look, I don't have a problem with the current one. The credentials policy will be interesting to see if it changes, but yeah, yeah, and the compliance requirements.

Angela Connell-Richards: 14:02

I haven't really seen any changes at all in that. No, it's just pretty much the same.

Maciek Fibrick: 14:07

The things that sort of jumped out at me from a compliance schedule, I guess, were the focus on managing learner personal information they sort of spoken about that. The biggest one I think that is great for the industry in, I guess, weeding out some of the challenge to RTOs, if we can call it that is the two-year retention of assessment records. I think that's a really big positive step forward for us.

Maciek Fibrick: 14:35

The reduction from 30 years to seven years of retention of uh completion records I think that's a really positive change as well because the 30 year old record is not current no, yeah, no, but I think also with the usi, uh, that it's almost like if we're reporting every year, now what's the point of retaining anything, because the USI has it there? And then the other one was the fact that you need to notify ASQA within 10 days, not 90 days, and I think that's also a really positive step forward for the industry.

Angela Connell-Richards: 15:07

I think that's definitely positive, because there were quite a few operators out there who weren't notifying and trying to fly under the radar.

Maciek Fibrick: 15:16

Yeah.

Angela Connell-Richards: 15:16

So yeah, yeah, but other than that, yeah I operators out there who weren't notifying and trying to fly under the radar.

Maciek Fibrick: 15:18

yeah, so yeah yeah, yeah, but other than that, yeah, I can't really sort of see too much as that that has changed, which, uh, again begs the question you know a lot of these and and part of my approach was what are we updating in our policies when really there hasn't been too much significant change within these new standards?

Angela Connell-Richards: 15:35

so people that are going out there.

Maciek Fibrick: 15:37

So people that are going out there and spending thousands of dollars on buying a new suite of policies, pre-purchase and you know all of these sort of discounts what are you buying that you don't currently have?

Angela Connell-Richards: 15:51

Yeah, we're updating all of our policies, procedures and documents. In particular, the biggest change that we've worked on is contracts, so trainers' contracts and also position descriptions, because I found this is a great opportunity for us to review all of our documents against all of the other. Like the WHS requirements changed last year, so there was other legislation that changed.

Maciek Fibrick: 16:19

So we're just doing a clean sweep of everything and updating everything, yeah, and I truly think every RTO should, and we are living in a society, in an age now, where there's no excuse there really isn't. We have so much technology available to us that there's just no excuse not to devote some time to constantly review your documentation, because the age of having, you know, dust collectors from seven years ago, a policy that we haven't looked at it, just doesn't float anymore.

Angela Connell-Richards: 16:54

Yeah yeah, we need to have simpler processes that people can follow and, as you said, there's a lot of tech out there that we and particularly in AI that we can use for creating really easy to follow processes, which is what. So we've actually seen this as an opportunity of yep. We're going to update all of our documentation to the new standards, but we're also using technology and ai to improve it yeah so so having flow charts and things like that.

Angela Connell-Richards: 17:26

Yeah, yeah yeah yeah, and so what are your thoughts on the shift to self-assurance and um and continuous improvements? Come back.

Maciek Fibrick: 17:47

Let's look at the word shift. You and I, I think, agree on this on so many levels. The term systematic self-assurance is really only I've ever only seen it used within the RTO context. The concept itself is, with everywhere, systematic self-assurance. But the term itself I've not really seen out in the industry other than our space. But the concept itself. I have been a huge believer and a practicer of systematic self-assurance and continuous improvement from day dot, because anyone that runs a good quality business will be doing this anyway and it's the thing that um, without going on a complete tangent, the thing that I really struggle with is rtos that say I hate compliance, I the standards and it's sort of like, but they're just good quality practice management techniques that we should be doing anyway.

Angela Connell-Richards: 18:45

Yeah.

Maciek Fibrick: 18:46

I guess put into words. But so if you start to understand what the concept of systematic self-assurance or continuous improvement is and incorporate them into daily practices or weekly actions, compliance doesn't need to be painful.

Angela Connell-Richards: 19:03

No, no. My viewpoint on this is you should have a culture of compliance throughout your organisation, and it shouldn't be a pain of compliance. It should be that it's so much embedded in your culture that you don't even know that you're running a compliance system.

Maciek Fibrick: 19:22

Correct Absolutely. And so you know, I always say one of my sort of main points that I always talk about is like a monthly management meeting, for example, and I sort of say to people, do you run a meeting? It's like, yeah, we meet all the time. The time it's like, well, what if you made up an agenda that actually addressed a lot of the points that you need to discuss every time, every week, every month and documented that. And again, through technology, we can now record, have ai, summarize our meetings for us and actually produce minutes of meetings for us, so we don't actually need to sit there doing the old school like what were the key point takeaway? We can participate in a 30-minute meeting, have all of the actions recorded, because everyone just simply talks what they've done and then you've got a formal record of it yeah, we have um.

Angela Connell-Richards: 20:09

we recommend all our clients hold a monthly quality and compliance meeting and at their meeting they're looking at WHS, opportunities for improvement, complaints and appeals, training packages. So you just have them as standing agenda items. I think that's the core to that culture of continuous improvement. If you're just holding those meetings and then making sure that everyone's aware, by distributing those minutes, of what was discussed, I've gone one step further and I've shared this with sure that everyone's aware, by distributing those minutes of what was discussed.

Maciek Fibrick: 20:40

Yeah, I've gone one step further and I've shared this with other conferences in the past, where, for each agenda item, I do as a template but then ask my clients to change it as a standardized set of questions under each agenda item. So, for example, complaints right, rather than sitting there going. What do we ask Is have we had any complaints? Were they resolved? Were they? What things do we need to change to ensure that this complaint doesn't happen again? And so, by having sort of three or four questions after each agenda item, it again from a, I guess, an autonomy perspective anyone can chair that meeting. It doesn't have to be the CEO, it could be the receptionist, it could be a training manager, because they're just simply taking the role of the chair to facilitate the asking of those questions and discussion.

Angela Connell-Richards: 21:26

Making sure they're going through each agenda item and everybody has an opportunity to speak their voice. Correct, yeah.

Maciek Fibrick: 21:34

Yeah, yeah. I love the concept. I love the fact that they're still talking about it and I don't think it's going to make a huge difference for a lot of RTOs that are doing it already. Let's just hope that the ones that aren't pick up their game and actually start looking at it, but in a positive way, not as a negative afterthought.

Angela Connell-Richards: 21:55

Yeah, negative compliance is a pain in the neck and we don't want to do it because if, if, if your team are hearing that from the top, you're just going to have that culture all the way through. So, whereas if you have it as, uh, continuous improvement is just the way we do things here, uh, it's a totally different vibe that you're going to get and it's going to make it so much easier for you to maintain your compliance.

Maciek Fibrick: 22:20

Yeah, so you're spot on. Culture of compliance is what I promote as well, and then also, just, I guess, looking at those little micro improvements that you make along the way. So it's not a massive annual audit, whilst annual audits are great, but those are the types of things that should already exist as you progress through. And then also, the other thing is, you know, like for me, I always say, why do we have a compliance manager, or a compliance consultant, even, or a compliance officer, when compliance really should be operationally within every role as well? Now, I get that you know we've got those roles for a reason, but then also, let's you know, are they compliance or are they also an improvement manager, an improvement officer?

Angela Connell-Richards: 23:23

Well, under the new VET workforce requirements, it is now a requirement that every team member needs to understand. That and this is what we've put in their position description is everyone needs to comply with the standards and have an understanding of the standards, so I think that is really good. The quality area three, where they've added this vet workforce and that it's not just focused on trainers and assessors. It's everyone within the RTO needs to understand what their responsibilities are when it comes to compliance and what is compliance.

Maciek Fibrick: 23:58

How many times have you heard a receptionist say oh, I'm just the receptionist, yeah, and I was like no, no, no, you are integral. Like if you are picking up the phone and answering calls, you have got the first point of contact with potentially students that are asking you questions. You need to understand marketing, the enrolment process. You need so this concept of I'm just the it never floats for me, you know.

Maciek Fibrick: 24:25

but you're right, we've always had this concept of focusing on the trainer and assessor compliance, but really it is a whole of workforce component, for sure yeah, yeah, and having that vet pd for all team members so that, if you know, they all understand what's going on and why we need to do these reports and what is compliance, and that we can't guarantee employment outcomes, and you know so it's across all, all the teams that they understand, uh, what is compliance?

Angela Connell-Richards: 25:02

but also, um, how compliance improves the quality of the rto as well right?

Maciek Fibrick: 25:10

yep, yeah, one of the and one of the ways that I sort of look at it is like if someone from within your workplace walked past an arcing light or an arcing PowerPoint, would they walk past it and going not my problem, I'm just the receptionist. No, they would identify, going oh, that's a problem. I need to act on that by either calling an electrician or calling the fire brigade, or whatever it is the WHS officer.

Maciek Fibrick: 25:32

Correct, and the same culture really should be there within, within NACIO, from a compliance perspective in that, and whether it's the receptionist or whether it's an admin manager or or the CEO, they should be able to walk past something and go. That doesn't look right. Let's let's look a little bit further or deeper into that and have at least an overall understanding of what what compliance is within their role and overall as well yeah, yeah, I definitely agree with that as well.

Angela Connell-Richards: 26:00

Okay, talking about audits, have you what's your thoughts around asquith's auditing approach? We've already seen changes in the order. Even though they're not supposed to be auditing against the new standards yet, in particular, for initial registration, we've already seen some major changes in how they're auditing. What's your experience been so far with audits? But, secondly, what are your thoughts on their approach?

Maciek Fibrick: 26:29

Look, I haven't seen. I honestly haven't seen a huge change, and the number of audits that you would be seeing is probably a greater number than I do based on, I guess, my approach with my clients. But the thing that I'm seeing in the last probably four audits that I had in the last sort of two months hasn't been significant change yet. Significant change yet, however, the approach to identifying how that systematic self-assurance and continuous improvement is implemented.

Maciek Fibrick: 27:04

There has been very much a strong focus on that yeah whether that's a new approach or preparing for the, for the new standards. I mean, systematic self-assurance has been promoted by ASQA for God, four years now I think it is three, four years so I don't think it's so much a new approach and, again, I'm not a huge advocate, I guess, for that. There is a significant change in the standards, to the point where we're rewriting all of our documents yet, and so so part of me sort of says I don't expect a huge change from ASQA auditors. But, that said, I'm constantly seeing a different approach by every auditor, every audit, yeah, and so I can't ever say that I've had a consistent audit approach by Asquah in the years since 2011. Yeah, and that's a concern for me.

Angela Connell-Richards: 28:12

Yeah, yeah, I agree. And you know what was it Dave O'Garner said at a conference once. He said when we turn all of the auditors into robots, then maybe we'll get consistency. So maybe we replace them with AI and we'll be right.

Maciek Fibrick: 28:30

Look, I guess when you go back to the days of aqtf 2007, 2011, the standards were a lot more prescriptive. The standard said this is what you have to include, this is, etc. And. And so it was therefore a tick box and um, and I'll never forget the words that carol hunter once said to me, it's like compliance seems to be this pendulum and we go from one side to the other.

Maciek Fibrick: 28:54

And so we go extreme to another extreme of let anything go. And then we realise that we're not doing our job. So let's start doing everything to control. And so, as the standards for the last 10 years haven't changed, the auditing practices have significantly changed, from having multiple attempts to rectify to having no attempts and basically being shut down at initial registration for having a couple of words wrong, to now what I think would almost be fair, because they're using that sort of risk-based approach to say, look, you're almost there, there's a minor deficiency here, but so you're good to go to look, this is non-compliant. We'll give you the number of days to fix this to you know what you really need to go back to the drawing board. We're going to reject this application until you've got at least a level of understanding that, uh, that you can actually manage your rto. So if that is implemented consistently, that I'm okay with that.

Angela Connell-Richards: 30:00

But consistency is that key word yeah, yeah, and I don't know how they're going to ensure that they've got the consistency. Um, I I've I've had a lot of bad experiences with inconsistency, but so some of the changes that we've seen because I won't go down that path now because that's like another hour conversation so what we've seen is, in particular, initial registration. So, for initial registration, it seems to be every time we're submitting they're asking for something new at the moment. So I think they're still trying to work out, well, what's going to be the best with under the new standards. So some of the things um, they're asking us to resubmit documents. They're asking uh, the big thing has been the organizational profile. They're asking for that a lot more now, much more for re-reg. They're expecting a business plan. So we're seeing that more and more now and that business plan.

Maciek Fibrick: 31:04

Well, it's associated with the FVRA, so they're asking for the.

Angela Connell-Richards: 31:07

FVRA then says the business plan so business clients that haven't had to do an FVRA.

Maciek Fibrick: 31:12

Oh, really. So financial viability, yeah, wow.

Angela Connell-Richards: 31:14

The auditor is just asking for. This is where you were now. What are you wanting to do now? So what are your goals and what have you set for the next three to five years? And how are you going to manage that process of expansion, if you're going to expand, including how many trainers, per course, that you're delivering and training product and all that sort of stuff? That's what they're asking for.

Maciek Fibrick: 31:40

And on the flip side, I literally finished a re-reg audit last week where they audited 2.2 and that was the only clause. They audited for the re-reg and they asked for none of that.

Angela Connell-Richards: 31:52

Wow.

Maciek Fibrick: 31:54

And the closing meeting went for 45, 50 minutes. So, yeah, this is that inconsistency, and I understand that it's risk-based and I understand that there's information behind the scenes that ASQA may be looking at, but it makes our job very hard.

Angela Connell-Richards: 32:12

Yeah, yeah, which is why we always have to come up with different contingencies. So the big thing that we focus on when we're working with our clients is the worst-case scenario.

Maciek Fibrick: 32:24

Yeah.

Angela Connell-Richards: 32:26

And sometimes we've prepared our clients so well that we just breeze through and they go oh, why did you make us do all of this stuff?

Maciek Fibrick: 32:33

And we're like well, because it's good, but also it's good practice you know, but we will always go worst case scenario and we want to prepare the clients as well as we can for any audit scenario yeah, yeah, it's, it's and you know sorry to all the my auditing colleagues that I know out there, but it's a sad reality that you almost also have to prepare the client once we know who the auditor is.

Angela Connell-Richards: 33:04

Yes, true, true, exactly.

Angela Connell-Richards: 33:08

We actually have an auditor's matrix where we have the auditor, different clients and and the standards and what did they deem compliant and non-compliant as a matrix. And then we also include what are their additional. We call them idiosyncrasies, but the little things that they like to have Quirks, quirks, their little quirks, whether they're accepted for you to buy them a cup of coffee or not, correct, um, but we, we and that mapping that I did. It was just incredible looking at the inconsistencies between the auditors. Um, we haven't done it for a little while, uh, but yes, we definitely will be looking at that again for the new standards and see how we go, but I think audit-wise it definitely has been an improvement from four or five years ago 100% and again, just on a side note for that, and I agree with you, but your approach to preparing the client and it's exactly the same approach that I've got is that I want.

Maciek Fibrick: 34:14

I want the, the assessor, the auditor to to feel confident that when they're talking to my client, they're talking to the client and not me and whilst, like I said, I might be there in the background as an interpreter or so forth, but I really my aim is always that there is nothing that the client won't know if asked, if they've been studious enough to make it an effort to understand the policies as well.

Maciek Fibrick: 34:43

And that's even outside the audit practice. I mean the amount of people say, oh, there's again compliance, blah, blah. But anyone who's actually made an effort to understand and learn the standards should know that they're not overly cumbersome on most levels. There are some things there as well, but I always say I reckon it would be harder to run a cafe than it would be an RTO. You don't have food going off, you don't need to account for wastage, you don't need to expect you know, if it's a rainy day, that you're not going to have people coming through the door, extra staff like at least as an RTO, you know what to expect almost every day and I think it's just a matter of learning the standards and the same with the new standards coming in, make an effort to sit there and read them as a team and go. How does this change? How does this approach differ to our current practice?

Angela Connell-Richards: 35:34

what are they saying? What are they? Asking for us yeah, or do some training on it, um like uh, the way we deliver our training. So I've this year I've got a workshop that I do every month that's on different uh components of the standards, and what I'm doing with that is I'm giving activities to do as well, so you can actually get your team together and do little mini audits or reviews to see where you're at when it comes to the new requirements.

Maciek Fibrick: 36:09

Yeah, profession to train. To pick one of the standards or one of the performance indicators and say prepare a presentation for the rest of us and use it as a way for us to also evaluate your training processes and how you prepare for work. Great, idea. And use it as a PD session.

Angela Connell-Richards: 36:27

Yeah, love it. I think that's a great idea. Yeah, yeah, all right, so we're going to wrap up this one. Uh, this has been fantastic to hear your views on the breaking down of the standards. Um, in our next interview, we're going to be going through the future of vocational education and what we think is well. I think we'll be looking into our crystal balls of what we think may be happening in the future. So thank you, maychek, for being my guest today, and I look forward to a year of conversations about the sector and the new standards.

Maciek Fibrick: 37:06

Thanks, thanks so much.

Angela Connell-Richards: 37:11

Right.

Maciek Fibrick: 37:15

I think it's starting.