Newbery Consulting Newbery Consulting Newbery Consulting

 

 

 

 

 
 

VET News

Wednesday 24th of September 2025

 

Hello and welcome to VET News,

Before I get into my topic for the month, I am very pleased to provide a link to our second article on the 2025 standards implementation. The article is on Training Quality over Quantity, Redefining Training Under Standard 1.1 Click

It has now been almost three months since the new Standards came into effect, and in that time a number of our clients have already been through the new audit process with very good outcomes. These results are not by accident. They reflect careful preparation and an understanding of what works under the new system. We have been able to identify clear trends, particularly in the way evidence is organised and presented, and I want to share some of our initial observations.

What we are seeing is that the regulator’s evidence requests can only be described as vague. They simply list the topic areas under review without identifying the information that providers are expected to submit. The regulator points providers to the practice guides, but in reality, those documents are void of any practical guidance on the evidence needed to demonstrate compliance. The practice guides give very high-level explanation of requirements and spend much of their time talking about practices to avoid, but they do not set out what evidence is expected.

In preparation for a performance assessment under this new model, providers must ensure that the evidence you submit demonstrates both your strategies and your practices relevant to the topic area nominated. Strategies are your policies, procedures, and systems. Practices are the tangible records that prove those strategies are being carried out. These might include registers, meeting minutes, validation records, assessment evidence, training schedules, or student files, etc. The key point is evidence must clearly show that the organisation has applied its own strategies in practice. Where policies promise one thing and the evidence points to another, the inconsistency becomes immediately a problem in the audit.

This link between strategies and practices is what gives evidence its strength. A continuous improvement register on its own is not sufficient unless there are meeting minutes and actions that show how it has been used. A policy on assessment is not sufficient unless the student assessments demonstrate those policies being applied. A training safety policy carries little weight unless it is backed by site checklists, hazard reports, or maintenance logs. Strong evidence is systematic, contextualised, and consistent. It reflects the organisation’s framework and confirms that policies are operating as intended.

Here is just one example of the ASQA request for evidence they will issue you:

Item 2 – Continuous improvement and self-assurance

That is all you will get. There is no detail on what forms of evidence are required. It is left to each provider to interpret how to demonstrate compliance. This is where the distinction between strategies and practices becomes so important. Evidence must not only show that you have a policy on continuous improvement and self-assurance, but that you are actively applying them. That might mean providing evidence of your continuous improvement register, governance records, management meeting minutes, an updated risk register, or a sample of completed self-assurance activities. The point is not to overwhelm the auditor with volume, but to select evidence that clearly demonstrates the link between your policies and their implementation.

We have also long emphasised to clients the importance of not only preparing evidence but also presenting it in a structured and consistent way. Evidence should always align with the numbering and sequence of the regulator’s request, with documents clearly identified at both folder and file level. This level of organisation is not a matter of style; it is fundamental to efficiency. Well-labelled submissions allow the auditor to locate the required information quickly, avoid unnecessary requests for clarification, and keep the audit process focused. Where evidence is poorly structured or inconsistently labelled, the process slows down and costs inevitably rise.

One of the key advantages in providing evidence that is comprehensive and is clearly labelled and structured is the reduction of audit costs. We have had three renewal registrations recently occur since the 1st of July where the clients were all found compliant and the average audit cost was $4000. This recent experience is certainly reinforced to me that if the organisation is operating as it should with very good policies and procedures and clear evidence of the implementation of these, they should expect minimal audit cost.

The key point to make here is , if you are preparing for renewal registration, once you have your request, you will only have 5 days to prepare and submit the evidence. You need to make sure that you are looking at the requested subject areas very systematically and providing comprehensive evidence of your policy arrangements and your implementation of these policies. Our experience is that it takes a client about two weeks to properly prepare this evidence and for us then to review it and provide feedback. So, it’s something that you need to be thinking about in advance because if you are coming in to the renewal of registration audit flat footed, you may not have sufficient time to respond appropriately and therein begins the problems. These problems and high audit cost can be avoided but, it requires organisations to be prepared in advance.

Good training,

Joe Newbery

Compliance & Regulatory News

Other VET News

Reports, Articles, Papers and Research

Training Packages Updates

 

 

Back to Articles

Webinar Series

Recent News

Recent Posts

Yada

© 2025 Newbery Consulting