Welcome back to the RTO Superhero Podcast. I'm Angela Connell Richards. Today I look at one of the most serious issues facing the VET sector. ASCA has been cancelling large numbers of qualifications under the Qualification Integrity Regulatory Action Program. This action protects students and industry, but it also highlights deep failures in training and assessment across some RTOs. I want to break this down in plain language. Why ASCA cancels qualifications, what these cases have in common, and what every RTO must do to avoid the same outcome. ASCA created this program because some providers issued AQF documentation without proper assessment. Under the compliance requirements, an RTO must not issue a qualification or statement of attainment unless the student has met the full requirements of the training product. When ASCA finds that a certificate was issued without valid evidence, they cancel it. This protects the integrity of the AQF and protects the industries that rely on properly skilled graduates. Students feel the impact first. A cancelled qualification no longer exists in the system. Students must retrain, often at their own cost. Years of trust and effort can be undone by one provider's poor practice. That is why ASCA publishes the details. They want students and employers to see the scale of the issue and understand that these cancellations happen only when the evidence is not there. Across the published cases the same problems appear again and again. Invalid assessment evidence. No observation of practical skills. Assessment tools that do not match the training product. Trainers who do not hold the correct TAE credentials or lack current industry skills. Third parties delivering training without oversight. Compressed delivery that makes real competency impossible. These patterns breach the outcome standards and the credential policy. They show that the assessment systems in those RTOs were not fit for purpose and were not producing genuine, defensible competency judgments. Invalid assessment evidence is the most common issue. ASCA found missing files, fabricated documents, incomplete tasks, or generic evidence that had no link to the student. When the evidence cannot prove competence, the certificate cannot stand. This goes to the heart of Outcome Standard 1.3 and the rules of evidence. Assessment must be valid, sufficient, authentic, and current. Without this, the qualification has no integrity. Another major issue is the absence of practical observation. Many cancelled qualifications came from high-risk training areas where direct observation is essential for safety. If a student is marked competent without showing the required skills in a real or simulated environment, the assessment is invalid. This puts students, employers and the public at risk. Many cases involve trainers who lack the correct TAE credentials or lacked current industry skills. Under the credential policy, anyone making assessment judgments must hold the required TAE qualification or assess a skill set and must maintain industry currency. If a person is not credentialed, their assessment decisions are invalid. This failure alone can lead to widespread cancellations. Poor oversight of third parties is another high risk factor. Some RTOs handed delivery or assessment to external partners without monitoring them. Under clause 17 of the compliance requirements, the RTO remains fully responsible for the quality of services. If third parties are not monitored, assessed or supported, the integrity of training collapses. Unrealistic course durations also appear throughout ASCAR's decisions. Training compressed into impossible time frames cannot meet standard 1.1. Students need structured delivery, practice, feedback, and time to develop skills. If the duration does not allow this, the training cannot produce competent graduates. Assessment tools also played a major role. Some tools did not map to the training product. Some guided students toward answers. Some lacked clear instructions. Others allowed assessors to pass students without real evidence. Standard 1.3 requires all tools to be reviewed before use and updated when needed. Weak tools lead to weak evidence, and weak evidence leads to cancellations. When ASCOR cancels a qualification, the implications are serious. Students must re-enroll with another provider. They lose time and money. Employers may question their capability. Regulatory bodies may refuse licenses. Some students only find out years later when they apply for a job or visa. These outcomes damage confidence in the entire sector. But cancellations do not happen without warning signs. In every case published by ASCA, there were patterns pointing to poor governance and weak self-assurance. That is where the key lesson sits. Strong self-assurance is the only way an RTO protects its students and protects its registration. There are clear steps every RTO must take. Start with a strong assessment system. Your system needs tools mapped to each training product, clear instructions, defined evidence criteria, and tasks that match real workplace requirements. You need to moderate and validate your tools. You need to check consistency across assessors. You need to review tools when training products change. This aligns with standards 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5. Require valid evidence for every judgment. Assessment must be based on real-world demonstration, not assumptions. Evidence must be current, sufficient, and authentic. No pre-filled templates, no recycled evidence, no shortcuts. This protects the quality of every certificate you issue. Check every trainer and assessor credential. Verify TAE credentials. Verify industry currency. Verify professional development. Record everything. Review it at least annually. This aligns with outcome standards 3.2 and 3.3 and the credential policy. Monitor third parties with discipline. Have a written agreement, observe sessions, check assessment decisions, confirm credentials, review student outcomes, take action early. You cannot outsource responsibility. You remain accountable. Keep marketing honest. State accurate durations, entry requirements, support services and fees. Never promise jobs or shortcuts. Compliance requirement clause. Seven is clear about this. Maintain strong student information and enrollment checks. Students must understand what they are signing up for. They need clear information on workload, assessment, support, and placement requirements. This aligns with outcome standards two point one and two point two. Collect and act on complaints. Many cancelled qualification cases show that students raised concerns but were ignored. A strong complaint system prevents those patterns from growing. Record feedback. Respond in set time frames, fix underlying issues, strengthen governance and self-assurance. Your governing persons must understand the standards and the compliance requirements. They must engage with risk. They must review delivery and assessment data. They must act early when patterns appear. This aligns with standards 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. This is the message that runs through all qualification integrity decisions. Poor assessment practice carries heavy consequences. Strong governance and self-assurance protect everyone. Students rely on your systems. Industry relies on your systems. Your registration relies on your systems. Audit your assessment tools, check your evidence trail, review your trainer credentials, monitor your third parties, update your marketing, strengthen your governance meetings, capture risk, document decisions, fix issues early. These actions keep you off the cancellation list. They protect the value of every qualification you issue. Thanks for listening to the RTO Superhero podcast. Stay committed to integrity. Stay committed to evidence and keep lifting the standard. See you next time.