February 18, 2025 • 37 mins
In this episode of the RTO Superhero Podcast, host Angela Connell-Richards is joined for the first time by Maciek Fibrich, who will be a regular guest throughout the year as they unpack the Revised Standards for RTOs.
Together, they break down what RTOs need to know right now about the compliance changes, including:
📜 What’s changing (and what’s not)? The real impact of the new standards on policies, procedures, and day-to-day operations.
🎓 The updated credential policy—why the TAE qualification requirements are shifting and what it means for trainers.
🔄 Self-assurance & continuous improvement—how RTOs can move away from compliance being a "burden" and create a culture of quality.
🛠 Audit expectations—how ASQA’s approach is evolving and what RTOs should be prepared for in their next audit.
🤖 Leveraging technology & AI—how RTOs can use automation and digital tools to simplify compliance and improve efficiency.
Angela and Maciek bring their expert insights, strong opinions, and plenty of passion to this conversation—helping RTOs cut through the confusion and focus on what really matters.
Join host Angela Connell-Richards as she opens each episode with a burst of insight and inspiration. Discover why compliance is your launchpad to success, not a limitation.
Connect with fellow RTO professionals in our free Facebook groups: the RTO Community and RTO Job Board. Visit rtosuperhero.au/groups to join today.
Wrap up with gratitude and guidance. Subscribe, leave a review, and join our community as we continue supporting your compliance journey in vocational education.
Thank you for tuning in to the RTO Superhero Podcast!
We’re excited to have you join us as we focus on the Revised Standards for RTOs in 2025. Together, we’ll explore key changes, compliance strategies, and actionable insights to help your RTO thrive under the new standards.
Stay connected with the RTO Community:
📌 Don’t forget to:
✔ Subscribe to the RTO Superhero Podcast so you never miss an episode!
✔ Share this episode with your RTO network—compliance is a team effort!
🎙 Listen now and get ahead of the compliance changes before it’s too late!
📢 Want even more compliance insights? Subscribe to our EduStream YouTube Channel for our FAQ series on the New Standards for RTOs 2025! 🎥
🔗 Subscribe now: EduStream by Vivacity Coaching
✉️ Email us at hello@vivacity.com.au
📞 Call us on 1300 729 455
🖥️ Visit us at vivacity.com.au
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Angela Connell-Richards (00:05):
Okay, welcome everybody to the RTO
Superhero Podcast with myspecial guest, maycek, who's
going to be joining me for thewhole year reviewing the new,
revised standards.
Maycek, give us a littlebackground about who you are and
what you've been doing, and Ifound out recently that you
started as a baby in an RTO.
(00:26):
Give me a background, indeed.
Maciek Fibrick (00:29):
Look, my background is quite extensive.
As a 46-year-old, I think I canstill already call myself a
veteran of the industry.
This is now my 27th year in theindustry, starting out back in
1999 when we started my firstRTO with my mother in the beauty
industry.
So that was the Sydney Collegeof Skincare, back then back in
(00:53):
Hornsby.
So ever since then I've donebasically everything when it
comes to running RTOs, buildingRTOs, growing RTOs, and now here
I am helping consultant coach.
So yeah, it's been an amazingjourney over those years with a
lot of changes, and here we areagain.
Here we are again, More changes.
Angela Connell-Richards (01:14):
So yes, so this year for the RTO
Superhero Podcast we've got atheme of the new standards and
what that impact is going to beon RTOs and basically how I
wanted the podcast series to gois like popping in on a
conversation between twoexperienced consultants, which
(01:35):
we do quite regularly, and whenwe do, we get quite passionate
about what we talk about.
So we're going to let thepassion fly.
Does that sound good?
Maciek Fibrick (01:47):
That's absolutely brilliant, bring it
on Excellent, excellent, Allright.
Angela Connell-Richards (01:51):
So to start with, if you've had your
head in the sand, we have somenew standards that are coming
out, and in our last podcast, Iwas with head guest speaker
Lauren Hollows and we talkedabout whether you should be
preparing for the new standardsnow, and we both agreed
(02:11):
absolutely yes.
Maychek was just telling methat he actually hasn't started
yet.
Maciek Fibrick (02:18):
Let's clarify that I have started.
I'm just waiting for furtherguidance from ASQA and if you
haven't seen the new guides thatASQA have released, they are
released on the ASQA website andif you have seen them,
hopefully you're as disappointedas I am.
Angela Connell-Richards (02:43):
So they've uploaded new practice
guides.
I against each of the qualityareas, and the latest ones that
came out were on student support.
Uh, they still haven't releasedanything on the um vet
workforce yet and uh, yeah, it'sa.
It's, yeah, it's a sort of aguide.
(03:03):
It's not a user guide.
They're apparently going to doa user guide as well.
These practice guides areseparate yeah, look it's, it's
again.
Maciek Fibrick (03:13):
Without without sort of being too critical, the
way that I've sort of looked atit is they've taken the
performance indicators, put itinto chat, gpt and say write,
write me a paragraph or twoabout each one.
They really haven't given anysubstance to what an RTO really
should look for.
They've got some known risks,et cetera.
(03:34):
But I really wish that they'dstarted to provide a little bit
more substance, because that'swhat everyone has sort of been
waiting on, to say, okay, whatdo I need to do to update my
policies or my procedures?
Uh, what can I do, uh, to makethem more, I guess, aligned to
the, to the revised standardsand, more importantly,
especially around those areas ofyou know we'll talk about, I
(03:57):
guess, the the biggest changes,but well-being support and those
well-being support servicesthat they are now talking about
in the standards.
But what does that actuallymean?
And there's nothing mentionedin those user guides from, or
the practice guides from, asqa.
Angela Connell-Richards (04:16):
Yeah, what you have to actually have
in place now.
And what does it mean?
Like we've always, we've hadsupport services for quite some
time in the legislation, butwhat does it mean with the
addition of well-being and umand, in particular, mental
health support as well?
Maciek Fibrick (04:34):
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 turnaround and say, well, I need
dietary support, or I needmental health support, or I need
emotional support.
Do I do I bring my you know?
Do I need to have dogs in inthe classroom now to support
people?
So there's a lot of um.
I think the one thing that Iwas looking for from asper this
(04:57):
time around, and and in creditto to industry um, as you'll
know, um, this is the longestwe've had, I guess, consistency
in any standards.
It's 10 years since we've had achange.
So credit where credit's due inthat respect that we've had
this much consistency.
But I would have liked to thinkthat if they're putting in such
significant interpretiveclauses that there would be a
(05:20):
little bit more there to workoff, especially if it's a
practice guide or how they'regoing to expect RTOs to be
audited in the future.
Angela Connell-Richards (05:30):
Yeah, I'm wondering if they're,
because they've released thefeedback, complaints and appeals
, information and trainingsupport, but nothing around
wellbeing.
I wonder if that's still coming.
It could be because I'm surethere's got to be more for all
of the other areas as well.
That can't be it.
Maciek Fibrick (05:51):
I really hope not, yeah.
Angela Connell-Richards (05:53):
Yeah, because what about First Nations
?
Because that's not in thereeither.
No.
Maciek Fibrick (05:58):
No, and I still recall when ASQA came first,
when ASQA, I guess, took overthe delegated authority or
delegation in all the statesexcept WA and Victoria, where
the commissioner at the timesaid we're a regulator, we're
not an educator, and that didn'tlast very long.
It really suddenly became okay.
We see that we do need toeducate.
(06:19):
And again, credit wherecredit's due.
Asqa has been doing a good jobfrom an education perspective in
the last couple of years.
Angela Connell-Richards (06:28):
And it was actually the government that
told ASQA you have to educate.
Maciek Fibrick (06:34):
Yeah, yeah.
So I think let's hope that thataspect continues going and
these are just the first draftof many that will provide
feedback or provide guidance toRTOs, so that we don't have the
first six to 12 months ofauditing being an interpretive
(06:55):
nightmare.
Angela Connell-Richards (06:56):
Yeah, yeah.
Maciek Fibrick (06:57):
And that never happens, does it?
Angela Connell-Richards (06:59):
No, not at all.
I remember my very first ASQAaudit.
So we just moved from the stateregulators to the federal
regulators and it took aboutfour months from when they took
over before they startedauditing and my very first audit
.
I actually knew the auditor.
She'd worked for VTAB, whichwas the New South Wales State
(07:22):
Authority, and she said at thestart of the meeting Angela, as
a consultant, you are notallowed to answer questions on
behalf of the clients.
You can take notes.
You know the normal rhetoric.
And then halfway through shewas going through some of the
standards and went is that right?
Angela and I went is this sucha question?
Maciek Fibrick (07:47):
I very much have recalled many of those
experiences as well.
I think the only takeaway fromthat is at least consultants
like us that value our clients'understanding and knowledge of
growth.
We're ordereditors.
See what we've tried to achievewith the clients.
(08:10):
That it's not us, it's them,and we're just in the background
, almost interpreting certainquestions that auditors have
that sense where, or assessors Ishould say I apologize that
they have that sense of notnecessarily trust, but respect
for us as well, that we've beenaround long enough, that we have
our own opinion to share aswell.
Angela Connell-Richards (08:33):
Yeah, yeah, definitely Now.
So so far we've got practiceguides on the outcome standards.
We've still got draftcredential policy and draft
compliance requirements, so whoknows what's going to happen
with those?
I think there most probablywill be some changes in the
credential policy.
Maciek Fibrick (08:55):
So what are your thoughts on that?
What are your thoughts on thenon-existent really changes.
There's a couple of nice onesthat have been added.
Angela Connell-Richards (09:02):
Well, going backwards, going backwards
and saying that, oh no, youdon't need to get the latest TAE
now, after everyone just wentthrough the painful process of
updating to the latestqualification, they're now going
back.
Now I understand why because alot of trainers left because
they didn't want to do the newqualification.
But I think it's not reallydemonstrating that we are moving
(09:26):
forward if you're tellingtrainers oh no, don't worry
about upgrading yourqualification, we'll just accept
your old one.
Maciek Fibrick (09:34):
Yeah, look, I guess I hear what you're saying
and I don't disagree.
But, at the same time, how manyindustries do we know other
than this where you are forcedto go back and repeat the same
qualification multiple times?
And so I think there's a levelof normality that's been
introduced through this policyas well, to say, look, if you
(09:57):
studied and did your Cert IVback in 2010 but haven't done
any professional development ormaintained your currency in the
industry, then you're stillgoing to be non-compliant.
But this concept of having togo back and people call it an
upgrade to, and they, butthey're going from a cert for
say 40110 to a 16, now to a 22.
(10:21):
To me that's never been anupgrade, that's just been okay.
Call me a bit, I guess adifferent opinion, but I think
that's not an upgrade and it's amoney grab in some respects.
And I think that if you'regoing to go down the path of
having had your Cert 4, say the16 version, why not go and do
(10:45):
your diploma and actuallyupgrade a qualification to the
new diploma and do that as apathway?
But what I like about this isthat it sort of normalises the
fact that you can get aqualification and then the focus
should be on you maintainingand updating your skills,
whether that's personal or yeah,because we don't have a CPD
(11:07):
program in this industry.
Angela Connell-Richards (11:08):
No.
I think we should have one.
Maciek Fibrick (11:11):
I think we should as well, and so this to
me is not, I guess, a bad thingthat they've done this.
There have been many whispersin the industry that part of
this process was also to appeasea particular large institution
within our sector.
I'm being very safe here.
Angela Connell-Richards (11:34):
A public one?
Yes, a public one, maybe apublic one yes.
Maciek Fibrick (11:39):
And there was a lot of call there to allow for
that.
But whichever way you look atit, I think it's not a bad idea
to allow someone who's got anolder qualification to just
maintain their currency throughprofessional development as well
.
Angela Connell-Richards (11:55):
Yeah, and I think that needs to be a
bit clearer in the credentialpolicy around PD.
So, yes, you can hold the oldqualification, but you need to
be doing PD.
And what is that PD?
How many hours?
Like a professional developmentpoint system.
Maciek Fibrick (12:16):
Correct, and I mean that in itself is a
management nightmare as well.
But I think there definitelyneeds 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
(12:40):
for your workforce as well,because, you know, doing a
two-hour seminar once every sixmonths to me is not professional
development, that's just aloophole that you're using to
try and maintain compliance.
So yeah, but I do like theother thing that they've added
to that credential policy is nowthat they've clarified, with
validation, what additionalcredentials can be used for
(13:04):
validation, because the currentstandards really stipulate not
Schedule 1 of the standards, butyou have to have your Cert 4.
So anyone who had a diploma oranything wasn't actually allowed
to do validation unless theyhad the Cert IV 40116.
Angela Connell-Richards (13:20):
Yeah, yeah, it was pretty crazy where
it was before and it made itvery difficult, in particular
for small RTOs, to getvalidation done.
Maciek Fibrick (13:28):
Yeah, yeah, so all in all, look, I don't have a
problem with the current one.
The credentials policy will beinteresting to see if it changes
, but yeah, yeah, and thecompliance requirements.
Angela Connell-Richards (13:40):
I haven't really seen any changes
at all in that.
No, it's just pretty much thesame.
Maciek Fibrick (13:46):
The things that sort of jumped out at me from a
compliance schedule, I guess,were the focus on managing
learner personal informationthey sort of spoken about that.
The biggest one I think that isgreat for the industry in, I
guess, weeding out some of thechallenge to RTOs, if we can
call it that is the two-yearretention of assessment records.
(14:09):
I think that's a really bigpositive step forward for us.
The reduction from 30 years toseven years of retention of uh
completion records I thinkthat's a really positive change
as well because the 30 year oldrecord is not current no, yeah,
no, but I think also with theusi, uh, that it's almost like
(14:31):
if we're reporting every year,now what's the point of
retaining anything, because theUSI has it there?
And then the other one was thefact that you need to notify
ASQA within 10 days, not 90 days, and I think that's also a
really positive step forward forthe industry.
Angela Connell-Richards (14:46):
I think that's definitely positive,
because there were quite a fewoperators out there who weren't
notifying and trying to flyunder the radar.
Maciek Fibrick (14:54):
Yeah.
Angela Connell-Richards (14:55):
So yeah , yeah, but other than that,
yeah I operators out there whoweren't notifying and trying to
fly under the radar.
Maciek Fibrick (14:56):
yeah, so yeah yeah, yeah, but other than that,
yeah, I can't really sort ofsee too much as that that has
changed, which, uh, again begsthe question you know a lot of
these and and part of myapproach was what are we
updating in our policies whenreally there hasn't been too
much significant change withinthese new standards?
Angela Connell-Richards (15:14):
so people that are going out there.
Maciek Fibrick (15:15):
So people that are going out there and spending
thousands of dollars on buyinga new suite of policies,
pre-purchase and you know all ofthese sort of discounts what
are you buying that you don'tcurrently have?
Angela Connell-Richards (15:29):
Yeah, we're updating all of our
policies, procedures anddocuments.
In particular, the biggestchange that we've worked on is
contracts, so trainers'contracts and also position
descriptions, because I foundthis is a great opportunity for
us to review all of ourdocuments against all of the
(15:51):
other.
Like the WHS requirementschanged last year, so there was
other legislation that changed.
Maciek Fibrick (15:57):
So we're just doing a clean sweep of
everything and updatingeverything, yeah, and I truly
think every RTO should, and weare living in a society, in an
age now, where there's no excusethere really isn't.
We have so much technologyavailable to us that there's
just no excuse not to devotesome time to constantly review
(16:21):
your documentation, because theage of having, you know, dust
collectors from seven years ago,a policy that we haven't looked
at it, just doesn't floatanymore.
Angela Connell-Richards (16:33):
Yeah yeah, we need to have simpler
processes that people can followand, as you said, there's a lot
of tech out there that we andparticularly in AI that we can
use for creating really easy tofollow processes, which is what.
So we've actually seen this asan opportunity of yep.
We're going to update all ofour documentation to the new
(16:55):
standards, but we're also usingtechnology and ai to improve it
yeah so so having flow chartsand things like that.
Yeah, yeah yeah yeah, and sowhat are your thoughts on the
shift to self-assurance and umand continuous improvements?
Come back.
Maciek Fibrick (17:26):
Let's look at the word shift.
You and I, I think, agree onthis on so many levels.
The term systematicself-assurance is really only
I've ever only seen it usedwithin the RTO context.
The concept itself is, witheverywhere, systematic
self-assurance.
But the term itself I've notreally seen out in the industry
other than our space.
(17:46):
But the concept itself.
I have been a huge believer anda practicer of systematic
self-assurance and continuousimprovement from day dot,
because anyone that runs a goodquality business will be doing
this anyway and it's the thingthat um, without going on a
(18:06):
complete tangent, the thing thatI really struggle with is rtos
that say I hate compliance, Ithe standards and it's sort of
like, but they're just goodquality practice management
techniques that we should bedoing anyway.
Angela Connell-Richards (18:24):
Yeah.
Maciek Fibrick (18:25):
I guess put into words.
But so if you start tounderstand what the concept of
systematic self-assurance orcontinuous improvement is and
incorporate them into dailypractices or weekly actions,
compliance doesn't need to bepainful.
Angela Connell-Richards (18:42):
No, no.
My viewpoint on this is youshould have a culture of
compliance throughout yourorganisation, and it shouldn't
be a pain of compliance.
It should be that it's so muchembedded in your culture that
you don't even know that you'rerunning a compliance system.
Maciek Fibrick (19:00):
Correct Absolutely.
And so you know, I always sayone of my sort of main points
that I always talk about is likea monthly management meeting,
for example, and I sort of sayto people, do you run a meeting?
It's like, yeah, we meet allthe time.
The time it's like, well, whatif you made up an agenda that
actually addressed a lot of thepoints that you need to discuss
every time, every week, everymonth and documented that.
(19:22):
And again, through technology,we can now record, have ai,
summarize our meetings for usand actually produce minutes of
meetings for us, so we don'tactually need to sit there doing
the old school like what werethe key point takeaway?
We can participate in a30-minute meeting, have all of
the actions recorded, becauseeveryone just simply talks what
(19:42):
they've done and then you've gota formal record of it yeah, we
have um.
Angela Connell-Richards (19:47):
we recommend all our clients hold a
monthly quality and compliancemeeting and at their meeting
they're looking at WHS,opportunities for improvement,
complaints and appeals, trainingpackages.
So you just have them asstanding agenda items.
I think that's the core to thatculture of continuous
improvement.
If you're just holding thosemeetings and then making sure
(20:10):
that everyone's aware, bydistributing those minutes, of
what was discussed, I've goneone step further and I've shared
this with sure that everyone'saware, by distributing those
minutes of what was discussed.
Maciek Fibrick (20:18):
Yeah, I've gone one step further and I've shared
this with other conferences inthe past, where, for each agenda
item, I do as a template butthen ask my clients to change it
as a standardized set ofquestions under each agenda item
.
So, for example, complaintsright, rather than sitting there
going.
What do we ask Is have we hadany complaints?
Were they resolved?
Were they?
(20:39):
What things do we need tochange to ensure that this
complaint doesn't happen again?
And so, by having sort of threeor four questions after each
agenda item, it again from a, Iguess, 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
(20:59):
taking the role of the chair tofacilitate the asking of those
questions and discussion.
Angela Connell-Richards (21:05):
Making sure they're going through each
agenda item and everybody has anopportunity to speak their
voice.
Correct, yeah.
Maciek Fibrick (21:13):
Yeah, yeah.
I love the concept.
I love the fact that they'restill talking about it and I
don't think it's going to make ahuge difference for a lot of
RTOs that are doing it already.
Let's just hope that the onesthat 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 (21:33):
Yeah, negative compliance is a pain in
the neck and we don't want todo it because if, if, if your
team are hearing that from thetop, 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 getand it's going to make it so
(21:56):
much easier for you to maintainyour compliance.
Maciek Fibrick (21:59):
Yeah, so you're spot on.
Culture of compliance is what Ipromote as well, and then also,
just, I guess, looking at thoselittle micro improvements that
you make along the way.
So it's not a massive annualaudit, whilst annual audits are
great, but those are the typesof things that should already
exist as you progress through.
And then also, the other thingis, you know, like for me, I
(22:21):
always say, why do we have acompliance manager, or a
compliance consultant, even, ora compliance officer, when
compliance really should beoperationally within every role
as well?
Now, I get that you know we'vegot those roles for a reason,
but then also, let's you know,are they compliance or are they
also an improvement manager, animprovement officer?
Angela Connell-Richards (22:44):
Well, under the new VET workforce
requirements, it is now arequirement that every team
member needs to understand.
That and this is what we've putin their position description
is everyone needs to comply withthe standards and have an
understanding of the standards,so I think that is really good.
The quality area three, wherethey've added this vet workforce
(23:06):
and that it's not just focusedon trainers and assessors.
It's everyone within the RTOneeds to understand what their
responsibilities are when itcomes to compliance and what is
compliance.
Maciek Fibrick (23:18):
How many times have you heard a receptionist
say oh, I'm just thereceptionist, yeah, and I was
like no, no, no, you areintegral.
Like if you are picking up thephone and answering calls, you
have got the first point ofcontact with potentially
students that are asking youquestions.
You need to understandmarketing, the enrolment process
(23:39):
.
You need so this concept of I'mjust the it never floats for me
, you know.
but you're right, we've alwayshad this concept of focusing on
the trainer and assessorcompliance, but really it is a
whole of workforce component,for sure yeah, yeah, and having
(24:00):
that vet pd for all team membersso that, if you know, they all
understand what's going on andwhy we need to do these reports
and what is compliance, and thatwe can't guarantee employment
outcomes, and you know so it'sacross all, all the teams that
they understand, uh, what iscompliance?
Angela Connell-Richards (24:22):
but also, um, how compliance
improves the quality of the rtoas well right?
Maciek Fibrick (24:31):
yep, yeah, one of the and one of the ways that
I sort of look at it is like ifsomeone from within your
workplace walked past an arcinglight or an arcing PowerPoint,
would they walk past it andgoing not my problem, I'm just
the receptionist.
No, they would identify, goingoh, that's a problem.
I need to act on that by eithercalling an electrician or
calling the fire brigade, orwhatever it is the WHS officer.
(24:52):
Correct, and the same culturereally should be there within,
within NACIO, from a complianceperspective in that, and whether
it's the receptionist orwhether it's an admin manager or
or the CEO, they should be ableto walk past something and go.
That doesn't look right.
Let's let's look a little bitfurther or deeper into that and
have at least an overallunderstanding of what what
(25:13):
compliance is within their roleand overall as well yeah, yeah,
I definitely agree with that aswell.
Angela Connell-Richards (25:20):
Okay, talking about audits, have you
what's your thoughts aroundasquith's auditing approach?
We've already seen changes inthe order.
Even though they're notsupposed to be auditing against
the new standards yet, inparticular, for initial
registration, we've already seensome major changes in how
(25:41):
they're auditing.
What's your experience been sofar with audits?
But, secondly, what are yourthoughts on their approach?
Maciek Fibrick (25:49):
Look, I haven't seen.
I honestly haven't seen a hugechange, and the number of audits
that you would be seeing isprobably a greater number than I
do based on, I guess, myapproach with my clients.
But the thing that I'm seeingin the last probably four audits
that I had in the last sort oftwo months hasn't been
(26:10):
significant change yet.
Significant change yet, however, the approach to identifying
how that systematicself-assurance and continuous
improvement is implemented.
There has been very much astrong focus on that yeah
whether that's a new approach orpreparing for the, for the new
(26:32):
standards.
I mean, systematicself-assurance has been promoted
by ASQA for God, four years nowI think it is three, four years
so I don't think it's so much anew approach and, again, I'm
not a huge advocate, I guess,for that.
(26:53):
There is a significant changein the standards, to the point
where we're rewriting all of ourdocuments yet, and so so part
of me sort of says I don'texpect a huge change from ASQA
auditors.
But, that said, I'm constantlyseeing a different approach by
every auditor, every audit, yeah, and so I can't ever say that
(27:21):
I've had a consistent auditapproach by Asquah in the years
since 2011.
Yeah, and that's a concern forme.
Angela Connell-Richards (27:32):
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
And you know what was it DaveO'Garner said at a conference
once.
He said when we turn all of theauditors into robots, then
maybe we'll get consistency.
So maybe we replace them withAI and we'll be right.
Maciek Fibrick (27:50):
Look, I guess when you go back to the days of
aqtf 2007, 2011, the standardswere a lot more prescriptive.
The standard said this is whatyou have to include, this is,
etc.
And.
And so it was therefore a tickbox and um, and I'll never
forget the words that carolhunter once said to me, it's
like compliance seems to be thispendulum and we go from one
(28:13):
side to the other.
And so we go extreme to anotherextreme of let anything go.
And then we realise that we'renot doing our job.
So let's start doing everythingto control.
And so, as the standards forthe last 10 years haven't
changed, the auditing practiceshave significantly changed, from
(28:34):
having multiple attempts torectify to having no attempts
and basically being shut down atinitial registration for having
a couple of words wrong, to nowwhat I think would almost be
fair, because they're using thatsort of risk-based approach to
say, look, you're almost there,there's a minor deficiency here,
(28:57):
but so you're good to go tolook, this is non-compliant.
We'll give you the number ofdays to fix this to you know
what you really need to go backto the drawing board.
We're going to reject thisapplication until you've got at
least a level of understandingthat, uh, that you can actually
manage your rto.
So if that is implementedconsistently, that I'm okay with
(29:19):
that.
Angela Connell-Richards (29:20):
But consistency is that key word
yeah, yeah, and I don't know howthey're going to ensure that
they've got the consistency.
Um, I I've I've had a lot ofbad experiences with
inconsistency, but so some ofthe changes that we've seen
because I won't go down thatpath now because that's like
(29:41):
another hour conversation sowhat we've seen is, in
particular, initial registration.
So, for initial registration,it seems to be every time we're
submitting they're asking forsomething new at the moment.
So I think they're still tryingto work out, well, what's going
to be the best with under thenew standards.
(30:02):
So some of the things um,they're asking us to resubmit
documents.
They're asking uh, the bigthing has been the
organizational profile.
They're asking for that a lotmore now, much more for re-reg.
They're expecting a businessplan.
So we're seeing that more andmore now and that business plan.
Maciek Fibrick (30:24):
Well, it's associated with the FVRA, so
they're asking for the.
Angela Connell-Richards (30:28):
FVRA then says the business plan so
business clients that haven'thad to do an FVRA.
Maciek Fibrick (30:33):
Oh, really.
So financial viability, yeah,wow.
Angela Connell-Richards (30:35):
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 whathave you set for the next three
to five years?
And how are you going to managethat process of expansion, if
you're going to expand,including how many trainers, per
course, that you're deliveringand training product and all
(30:58):
that sort of stuff?
That's what they're asking for.
Maciek Fibrick (31:00):
And on the flip side, I literally finished a
re-reg audit last week wherethey audited 2.2 and that was
the only clause.
They audited for the re-reg andthey asked for none of that.
Angela Connell-Richards (31:12):
Wow.
Maciek Fibrick (31:14):
And the closing meeting went for 45, 50 minutes.
So, yeah, this is thatinconsistency, and I understand
that it's risk-based and Iunderstand that there's
information behind the scenesthat ASQA may be looking at, but
it makes our job very hard.
Angela Connell-Richards (31:32):
Yeah, yeah, which is why we always
have to come up with differentcontingencies.
So the big thing that we focuson when we're working with our
clients is the worst-casescenario.
Maciek Fibrick (31:44):
Yeah.
Angela Connell-Richards (31:46):
And sometimes we've prepared our
clients so well that we justbreeze through and they go oh,
why did you make us do all ofthis stuff?
Maciek Fibrick (31:53):
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 toprepare the clients as well as
we can for any audit scenarioyeah, yeah, it's, it's and you
(32:15):
know sorry to all the myauditing colleagues that I know
out there, but it's a sadreality that you almost also
have to prepare the client oncewe know who the auditor is.
Angela Connell-Richards (32:24):
Yes, true, true, exactly.
We actually have an auditor'smatrix where we have the auditor
, different clients and and thestandards and what did they deem
compliant and non-compliant asa matrix.
And then we also include whatare their additional.
We call them idiosyncrasies,but the little things that they
(32:49):
like to have Quirks, quirks,their little quirks, whether
they're accepted for you to buythem a cup of coffee or not,
correct, um, but we, we and thatmapping that I did.
It was just incredible lookingat the inconsistencies between
the auditors.
Um, we haven't done it for alittle while, uh, but yes, we
(33:11):
definitely will be looking atthat again for the new standards
and see how we go, but I thinkaudit-wise it definitely has
been an improvement from four orfive years ago 100% and again,
just on a side note for that,and I agree with you, but your
approach to preparing the clientand it's exactly the same
(33:32):
approach that I've got is that Iwant.
Maciek Fibrick (33:34):
I want the, the assessor, the auditor to to feel
confident that when they'retalking to my client, they're
talking to the client and not meand whilst, like I said, I
might be there in the backgroundas an interpreter or so forth,
but I really my aim is alwaysthat there is nothing that the
(33:55):
client won't know if asked, ifthey've been studious enough to
make it an effort to understandthe policies as well.
And that's even outside theaudit practice.
I mean the amount of people say, oh, there's again compliance,
blah, blah.
But anyone who's actually madean effort to understand and
learn the standards should knowthat they're not overly
(34:16):
cumbersome on most levels.
There are some things there aswell, but I always say I reckon
it would be harder to run a cafethan it would be an RTO.
You don't have food going off,you don't need to account for
wastage, you don't need toexpect you know, if it's a rainy
day, that you're not going tohave people coming through the
door, extra staff like at leastas an RTO, you know what to
(34:39):
expect almost every day and Ithink it's just a matter of
learning the standards and thesame with the new standards
coming in, make an effort to sitthere and read them as a team
and go.
How does this change?
How does this approach differto our current practice?
Angela Connell-Richards (34:55):
what are they saying?
What are they?
Asking for us yeah, or do sometraining on it, um like uh, the
way we deliver our training.
So I've this year I've got aworkshop that I do every month
that's on different uhcomponents of the standards, and
what I'm doing with that is I'mgiving activities to do as well
, so you can actually get yourteam together and do little mini
(35:19):
audits or reviews to see whereyou're at when it comes to the
new requirements.
Maciek Fibrick (35:29):
Yeah, profession to train.
To pick one of the standards orone of the performance
indicators and say prepare apresentation for the rest of us
and use it as a way for us toalso evaluate your training
processes and how you preparefor work.
Great, idea.
And use it as a PD session.
Angela Connell-Richards (35:47):
Yeah, love it.
I think that's a great idea.
Yeah, yeah, all right, so we'regoing to wrap up this one.
Uh, this has been fantastic tohear your views on the breaking
down of the standards.
Um, in our next interview,we're going to be going through
the future of vocationaleducation and what we think is
well.
I think we'll be looking intoour crystal balls of what we
(36:10):
think may be happening in thefuture.
So thank you, maychek, forbeing my guest today, and I look
forward to a year ofconversations about the sector
and the new standards.
Maciek Fibrick (36:26):
Thanks, thanks so much.
Angela Connell-Richards (36:31):
Right.
Maciek Fibrick (36:35):
I think it's starting.
Okay, welcome everybody to the RTO
Superhero Podcast with myspecial guest, maycek, who's
going to be joining me for thewhole year reviewing the new,
revised standards.
Maycek, give us a littlebackground about who you are and
what you've been doing, and Ifound out recently that you
started as a baby in an RTO.
(00:26):
Give me a background, indeed.
Maciek Fibrick (00:29):
Look, my background is quite extensive.
As a 46-year-old, I think I canstill already call myself a
veteran of the industry.
This is now my 27th year in theindustry, starting out back in
1999 when we started my firstRTO with my mother in the beauty
industry.
So that was the Sydney Collegeof Skincare, back then back in
(00:53):
Hornsby.
So ever since then I've donebasically everything when it
comes to running RTOs, buildingRTOs, growing RTOs, and now here
I am helping consultant coach.
So yeah, it's been an amazingjourney over those years with a
lot of changes, and here we areagain.
Here we are again, More changes.
Angela Connell-Richards (01:14):
So yes, so this year for the RTO
Superhero Podcast we've got atheme of the new standards and
what that impact is going to beon RTOs and basically how I
wanted the podcast series to gois like popping in on a
conversation between twoexperienced consultants, which
(01:35):
we do quite regularly, and whenwe do, we get quite passionate
about what we talk about.
So we're going to let thepassion fly.
Does that sound good?
Maciek Fibrick (01:47):
That's absolutely brilliant, bring it
on Excellent, excellent, Allright.
Angela Connell-Richards (01:51):
So to start with, if you've had your
head in the sand, we have somenew standards that are coming
out, and in our last podcast, Iwas with head guest speaker
Lauren Hollows and we talkedabout whether you should be
preparing for the new standardsnow, and we both agreed
(02:11):
absolutely yes.
Maychek was just telling methat he actually hasn't started
yet.
Maciek Fibrick (02:18):
Let's clarify that I have started.
I'm just waiting for furtherguidance from ASQA and if you
haven't seen the new guides thatASQA have released, they are
released on the ASQA website andif you have seen them,
hopefully you're as disappointedas I am.
Angela Connell-Richards (02:43):
So they've uploaded new practice
guides.
I against each of the qualityareas, and the latest ones that
came out were on student support.
Uh, they still haven't releasedanything on the um vet
workforce yet and uh, yeah, it'sa.
It's, yeah, it's a sort of aguide.
(03:03):
It's not a user guide.
They're apparently going to doa user guide as well.
These practice guides areseparate yeah, look it's, it's
again.
Maciek Fibrick (03:13):
Without without sort of being too critical, the
way that I've sort of looked atit is they've taken the
performance indicators, put itinto chat, gpt and say write,
write me a paragraph or twoabout each one.
They really haven't given anysubstance to what an RTO really
should look for.
They've got some known risks,et cetera.
(03:34):
But I really wish that they'dstarted to provide a little bit
more substance, because that'swhat everyone has sort of been
waiting on, to say, okay, whatdo I need to do to update my
policies or my procedures?
Uh, what can I do, uh, to makethem more, I guess, aligned to
the, to the revised standardsand, more importantly,
especially around those areas ofyou know we'll talk about, I
(03:57):
guess, the the biggest changes,but well-being support and those
well-being support servicesthat they are now talking about
in the standards.
But what does that actuallymean?
And there's nothing mentionedin those user guides from, or
the practice guides from, asqa.
Angela Connell-Richards (04:16):
Yeah, what you have to actually have
in place now.
And what does it mean?
Like we've always, we've hadsupport services for quite some
time in the legislation, butwhat does it mean with the
addition of well-being and umand, in particular, mental
health support as well?
Maciek Fibrick (04:34):
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 turnaround and say, well, I need
dietary support, or I needmental health support, or I need
emotional support.
Do I do I bring my you know?
Do I need to have dogs in inthe classroom now to support
people?
So there's a lot of um.
I think the one thing that Iwas looking for from asper this
(04:57):
time around, and and in creditto to industry um, as you'll
know, um, this is the longestwe've had, I guess, consistency
in any standards.
It's 10 years since we've had achange.
So credit where credit's due inthat respect that we've had
this much consistency.
But I would have liked to thinkthat if they're putting in such
significant interpretiveclauses that there would be a
(05:20):
little bit more there to workoff, especially if it's a
practice guide or how they'regoing to expect RTOs to be
audited in the future.
Angela Connell-Richards (05:30):
Yeah, I'm wondering if they're,
because they've released thefeedback, complaints and appeals
, information and trainingsupport, but nothing around
wellbeing.
I wonder if that's still coming.
It could be because I'm surethere's got to be more for all
of the other areas as well.
That can't be it.
Maciek Fibrick (05:51):
I really hope not, yeah.
Angela Connell-Richards (05:53):
Yeah, because what about First Nations
?
Because that's not in thereeither.
No.
Maciek Fibrick (05:58):
No, and I still recall when ASQA came first,
when ASQA, I guess, took overthe delegated authority or
delegation in all the statesexcept WA and Victoria, where
the commissioner at the timesaid we're a regulator, we're
not an educator, and that didn'tlast very long.
It really suddenly became okay.
We see that we do need toeducate.
(06:19):
And again, credit wherecredit's due.
Asqa has been doing a good jobfrom an education perspective in
the last couple of years.
Angela Connell-Richards (06:28):
And it was actually the government that
told ASQA you have to educate.
Maciek Fibrick (06:34):
Yeah, yeah.
So I think let's hope that thataspect continues going and
these are just the first draftof many that will provide
feedback or provide guidance toRTOs, so that we don't have the
first six to 12 months ofauditing being an interpretive
(06:55):
nightmare.
Angela Connell-Richards (06:56):
Yeah, yeah.
Maciek Fibrick (06:57):
And that never happens, does it?
Angela Connell-Richards (06:59):
No, not at all.
I remember my very first ASQAaudit.
So we just moved from the stateregulators to the federal
regulators and it took aboutfour months from when they took
over before they startedauditing and my very first audit
.
I actually knew the auditor.
She'd worked for VTAB, whichwas the New South Wales State
(07:22):
Authority, and she said at thestart of the meeting Angela, as
a consultant, you are notallowed to answer questions on
behalf of the clients.
You can take notes.
You know the normal rhetoric.
And then halfway through shewas going through some of the
standards and went is that right?
Angela and I went is this sucha question?
Maciek Fibrick (07:47):
I very much have recalled many of those
experiences as well.
I think the only takeaway fromthat is at least consultants
like us that value our clients'understanding and knowledge of
growth.
We're ordereditors.
See what we've tried to achievewith the clients.
(08:10):
That it's not us, it's them,and we're just in the background
, almost interpreting certainquestions that auditors have
that sense where, or assessors Ishould say I apologize that
they have that sense of notnecessarily trust, but respect
for us as well, that we've beenaround long enough, that we have
our own opinion to share aswell.
Angela Connell-Richards (08:33):
Yeah, yeah, definitely Now.
So so far we've got practiceguides on the outcome standards.
We've still got draftcredential policy and draft
compliance requirements, so whoknows what's going to happen
with those?
I think there most probablywill be some changes in the
credential policy.
Maciek Fibrick (08:55):
So what are your thoughts on that?
What are your thoughts on thenon-existent really changes.
There's a couple of nice onesthat have been added.
Angela Connell-Richards (09:02):
Well, going backwards, going backwards
and saying that, oh no, youdon't need to get the latest TAE
now, after everyone just wentthrough the painful process of
updating to the latestqualification, they're now going
back.
Now I understand why because alot of trainers left because
they didn't want to do the newqualification.
But I think it's not reallydemonstrating that we are moving
(09:26):
forward if you're tellingtrainers oh no, don't worry
about upgrading yourqualification, we'll just accept
your old one.
Maciek Fibrick (09:34):
Yeah, look, I guess I hear what you're saying
and I don't disagree.
But, at the same time, how manyindustries do we know other
than this where you are forcedto go back and repeat the same
qualification multiple times?
And so I think there's a levelof normality that's been
introduced through this policyas well, to say, look, if you
(09:57):
studied and did your Cert IVback in 2010 but haven't done
any professional development ormaintained your currency in the
industry, then you're stillgoing to be non-compliant.
But this concept of having togo back and people call it an
upgrade to, and they, butthey're going from a cert for
say 40110 to a 16, now to a 22.
(10:21):
To me that's never been anupgrade, that's just been okay.
Call me a bit, I guess adifferent opinion, but I think
that's not an upgrade and it's amoney grab in some respects.
And I think that if you'regoing to go down the path of
having had your Cert 4, say the16 version, why not go and do
(10:45):
your diploma and actuallyupgrade a qualification to the
new diploma and do that as apathway?
But what I like about this isthat it sort of normalises the
fact that you can get aqualification and then the focus
should be on you maintainingand updating your skills,
whether that's personal or yeah,because we don't have a CPD
(11:07):
program in this industry.
Angela Connell-Richards (11:08):
No.
I think we should have one.
Maciek Fibrick (11:11):
I think we should as well, and so this to
me is not, I guess, a bad thingthat they've done this.
There have been many whispersin the industry that part of
this process was also to appeasea particular large institution
within our sector.
I'm being very safe here.
Angela Connell-Richards (11:34):
A public one?
Yes, a public one, maybe apublic one yes.
Maciek Fibrick (11:39):
And there was a lot of call there to allow for
that.
But whichever way you look atit, I think it's not a bad idea
to allow someone who's got anolder qualification to just
maintain their currency throughprofessional development as well
.
Angela Connell-Richards (11:55):
Yeah, and I think that needs to be a
bit clearer in the credentialpolicy around PD.
So, yes, you can hold the oldqualification, but you need to
be doing PD.
And what is that PD?
How many hours?
Like a professional developmentpoint system.
Maciek Fibrick (12:16):
Correct, and I mean that in itself is a
management nightmare as well.
But I think there definitelyneeds 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
(12:40):
for your workforce as well,because, you know, doing a
two-hour seminar once every sixmonths to me is not professional
development, that's just aloophole that you're using to
try and maintain compliance.
So yeah, but I do like theother thing that they've added
to that credential policy is nowthat they've clarified, with
validation, what additionalcredentials can be used for
(13:04):
validation, because the currentstandards really stipulate not
Schedule 1 of the standards, butyou have to have your Cert 4.
So anyone who had a diploma oranything wasn't actually allowed
to do validation unless theyhad the Cert IV 40116.
Angela Connell-Richards (13:20):
Yeah, yeah, it was pretty crazy where
it was before and it made itvery difficult, in particular
for small RTOs, to getvalidation done.
Maciek Fibrick (13:28):
Yeah, yeah, so all in all, look, I don't have a
problem with the current one.
The credentials policy will beinteresting to see if it changes
, but yeah, yeah, and thecompliance requirements.
Angela Connell-Richards (13:40):
I haven't really seen any changes
at all in that.
No, it's just pretty much thesame.
Maciek Fibrick (13:46):
The things that sort of jumped out at me from a
compliance schedule, I guess,were the focus on managing
learner personal informationthey sort of spoken about that.
The biggest one I think that isgreat for the industry in, I
guess, weeding out some of thechallenge to RTOs, if we can
call it that is the two-yearretention of assessment records.
(14:09):
I think that's a really bigpositive step forward for us.
The reduction from 30 years toseven years of retention of uh
completion records I thinkthat's a really positive change
as well because the 30 year oldrecord is not current no, yeah,
no, but I think also with theusi, uh, that it's almost like
(14:31):
if we're reporting every year,now what's the point of
retaining anything, because theUSI has it there?
And then the other one was thefact that you need to notify
ASQA within 10 days, not 90 days, and I think that's also a
really positive step forward forthe industry.
Angela Connell-Richards (14:46):
I think that's definitely positive,
because there were quite a fewoperators out there who weren't
notifying and trying to flyunder the radar.
Maciek Fibrick (14:54):
Yeah.
Angela Connell-Richards (14:55):
So yeah , yeah, but other than that,
yeah I operators out there whoweren't notifying and trying to
fly under the radar.
Maciek Fibrick (14:56):
yeah, so yeah yeah, yeah, but other than that,
yeah, I can't really sort ofsee too much as that that has
changed, which, uh, again begsthe question you know a lot of
these and and part of myapproach was what are we
updating in our policies whenreally there hasn't been too
much significant change withinthese new standards?
Angela Connell-Richards (15:14):
so people that are going out there.
Maciek Fibrick (15:15):
So people that are going out there and spending
thousands of dollars on buyinga new suite of policies,
pre-purchase and you know all ofthese sort of discounts what
are you buying that you don'tcurrently have?
Angela Connell-Richards (15:29):
Yeah, we're updating all of our
policies, procedures anddocuments.
In particular, the biggestchange that we've worked on is
contracts, so trainers'contracts and also position
descriptions, because I foundthis is a great opportunity for
us to review all of ourdocuments against all of the
(15:51):
other.
Like the WHS requirementschanged last year, so there was
other legislation that changed.
Maciek Fibrick (15:57):
So we're just doing a clean sweep of
everything and updatingeverything, yeah, and I truly
think every RTO should, and weare living in a society, in an
age now, where there's no excusethere really isn't.
We have so much technologyavailable to us that there's
just no excuse not to devotesome time to constantly review
(16:21):
your documentation, because theage of having, you know, dust
collectors from seven years ago,a policy that we haven't looked
at it, just doesn't floatanymore.
Angela Connell-Richards (16:33):
Yeah yeah, we need to have simpler
processes that people can followand, as you said, there's a lot
of tech out there that we andparticularly in AI that we can
use for creating really easy tofollow processes, which is what.
So we've actually seen this asan opportunity of yep.
We're going to update all ofour documentation to the new
(16:55):
standards, but we're also usingtechnology and ai to improve it
yeah so so having flow chartsand things like that.
Yeah, yeah yeah yeah, and sowhat are your thoughts on the
shift to self-assurance and umand continuous improvements?
Come back.
Maciek Fibrick (17:26):
Let's look at the word shift.
You and I, I think, agree onthis on so many levels.
The term systematicself-assurance is really only
I've ever only seen it usedwithin the RTO context.
The concept itself is, witheverywhere, systematic
self-assurance.
But the term itself I've notreally seen out in the industry
other than our space.
(17:46):
But the concept itself.
I have been a huge believer anda practicer of systematic
self-assurance and continuousimprovement from day dot,
because anyone that runs a goodquality business will be doing
this anyway and it's the thingthat um, without going on a
(18:06):
complete tangent, the thing thatI really struggle with is rtos
that say I hate compliance, Ithe standards and it's sort of
like, but they're just goodquality practice management
techniques that we should bedoing anyway.
Angela Connell-Richards (18:24):
Yeah.
Maciek Fibrick (18:25):
I guess put into words.
But so if you start tounderstand what the concept of
systematic self-assurance orcontinuous improvement is and
incorporate them into dailypractices or weekly actions,
compliance doesn't need to bepainful.
Angela Connell-Richards (18:42):
No, no.
My viewpoint on this is youshould have a culture of
compliance throughout yourorganisation, and it shouldn't
be a pain of compliance.
It should be that it's so muchembedded in your culture that
you don't even know that you'rerunning a compliance system.
Maciek Fibrick (19:00):
Correct Absolutely.
And so you know, I always sayone of my sort of main points
that I always talk about is likea monthly management meeting,
for example, and I sort of sayto people, do you run a meeting?
It's like, yeah, we meet allthe time.
The time it's like, well, whatif you made up an agenda that
actually addressed a lot of thepoints that you need to discuss
every time, every week, everymonth and documented that.
(19:22):
And again, through technology,we can now record, have ai,
summarize our meetings for usand actually produce minutes of
meetings for us, so we don'tactually need to sit there doing
the old school like what werethe key point takeaway?
We can participate in a30-minute meeting, have all of
the actions recorded, becauseeveryone just simply talks what
(19:42):
they've done and then you've gota formal record of it yeah, we
have um.
Angela Connell-Richards (19:47):
we recommend all our clients hold a
monthly quality and compliancemeeting and at their meeting
they're looking at WHS,opportunities for improvement,
complaints and appeals, trainingpackages.
So you just have them asstanding agenda items.
I think that's the core to thatculture of continuous
improvement.
If you're just holding thosemeetings and then making sure
(20:10):
that everyone's aware, bydistributing those minutes, of
what was discussed, I've goneone step further and I've shared
this with sure that everyone'saware, by distributing those
minutes of what was discussed.
Maciek Fibrick (20:18):
Yeah, I've gone one step further and I've shared
this with other conferences inthe past, where, for each agenda
item, I do as a template butthen ask my clients to change it
as a standardized set ofquestions under each agenda item
.
So, for example, complaintsright, rather than sitting there
going.
What do we ask Is have we hadany complaints?
Were they resolved?
Were they?
(20:39):
What things do we need tochange to ensure that this
complaint doesn't happen again?
And so, by having sort of threeor four questions after each
agenda item, it again from a, Iguess, 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
(20:59):
taking the role of the chair tofacilitate the asking of those
questions and discussion.
Angela Connell-Richards (21:05):
Making sure they're going through each
agenda item and everybody has anopportunity to speak their
voice.
Correct, yeah.
Maciek Fibrick (21:13):
Yeah, yeah.
I love the concept.
I love the fact that they'restill talking about it and I
don't think it's going to make ahuge difference for a lot of
RTOs that are doing it already.
Let's just hope that the onesthat 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 (21:33):
Yeah, negative compliance is a pain in
the neck and we don't want todo it because if, if, if your
team are hearing that from thetop, 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 getand it's going to make it so
(21:56):
much easier for you to maintainyour compliance.
Maciek Fibrick (21:59):
Yeah, so you're spot on.
Culture of compliance is what Ipromote as well, and then also,
just, I guess, looking at thoselittle micro improvements that
you make along the way.
So it's not a massive annualaudit, whilst annual audits are
great, but those are the typesof things that should already
exist as you progress through.
And then also, the other thingis, you know, like for me, I
(22:21):
always say, why do we have acompliance manager, or a
compliance consultant, even, ora compliance officer, when
compliance really should beoperationally within every role
as well?
Now, I get that you know we'vegot those roles for a reason,
but then also, let's you know,are they compliance or are they
also an improvement manager, animprovement officer?
Angela Connell-Richards (22:44):
Well, under the new VET workforce
requirements, it is now arequirement that every team
member needs to understand.
That and this is what we've putin their position description
is everyone needs to comply withthe standards and have an
understanding of the standards,so I think that is really good.
The quality area three, wherethey've added this vet workforce
(23:06):
and that it's not just focusedon trainers and assessors.
It's everyone within the RTOneeds to understand what their
responsibilities are when itcomes to compliance and what is
compliance.
Maciek Fibrick (23:18):
How many times have you heard a receptionist
say oh, I'm just thereceptionist, yeah, and I was
like no, no, no, you areintegral.
Like if you are picking up thephone and answering calls, you
have got the first point ofcontact with potentially
students that are asking youquestions.
You need to understandmarketing, the enrolment process
(23:39):
.
You need so this concept of I'mjust the it never floats for me
, you know.
but you're right, we've alwayshad this concept of focusing on
the trainer and assessorcompliance, but really it is a
whole of workforce component,for sure yeah, yeah, and having
(24:00):
that vet pd for all team membersso that, if you know, they all
understand what's going on andwhy we need to do these reports
and what is compliance, and thatwe can't guarantee employment
outcomes, and you know so it'sacross all, all the teams that
they understand, uh, what iscompliance?
Angela Connell-Richards (24:22):
but also, um, how compliance
improves the quality of the rtoas well right?
Maciek Fibrick (24:31):
yep, yeah, one of the and one of the ways that
I sort of look at it is like ifsomeone from within your
workplace walked past an arcinglight or an arcing PowerPoint,
would they walk past it andgoing not my problem, I'm just
the receptionist.
No, they would identify, goingoh, that's a problem.
I need to act on that by eithercalling an electrician or
calling the fire brigade, orwhatever it is the WHS officer.
(24:52):
Correct, and the same culturereally should be there within,
within NACIO, from a complianceperspective in that, and whether
it's the receptionist orwhether it's an admin manager or
or the CEO, they should be ableto walk past something and go.
That doesn't look right.
Let's let's look a little bitfurther or deeper into that and
have at least an overallunderstanding of what what
(25:13):
compliance is within their roleand overall as well yeah, yeah,
I definitely agree with that aswell.
Angela Connell-Richards (25:20):
Okay, talking about audits, have you
what's your thoughts aroundasquith's auditing approach?
We've already seen changes inthe order.
Even though they're notsupposed to be auditing against
the new standards yet, inparticular, for initial
registration, we've already seensome major changes in how
(25:41):
they're auditing.
What's your experience been sofar with audits?
But, secondly, what are yourthoughts on their approach?
Maciek Fibrick (25:49):
Look, I haven't seen.
I honestly haven't seen a hugechange, and the number of audits
that you would be seeing isprobably a greater number than I
do based on, I guess, myapproach with my clients.
But the thing that I'm seeingin the last probably four audits
that I had in the last sort oftwo months hasn't been
(26:10):
significant change yet.
Significant change yet, however, the approach to identifying
how that systematicself-assurance and continuous
improvement is implemented.
There has been very much astrong focus on that yeah
whether that's a new approach orpreparing for the, for the new
(26:32):
standards.
I mean, systematicself-assurance has been promoted
by ASQA for God, four years nowI think it is three, four years
so I don't think it's so much anew approach and, again, I'm
not a huge advocate, I guess,for that.
(26:53):
There is a significant changein the standards, to the point
where we're rewriting all of ourdocuments yet, and so so part
of me sort of says I don'texpect a huge change from ASQA
auditors.
But, that said, I'm constantlyseeing a different approach by
every auditor, every audit, yeah, and so I can't ever say that
(27:21):
I've had a consistent auditapproach by Asquah in the years
since 2011.
Yeah, and that's a concern forme.
Angela Connell-Richards (27:32):
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
And you know what was it DaveO'Garner said at a conference
once.
He said when we turn all of theauditors into robots, then
maybe we'll get consistency.
So maybe we replace them withAI and we'll be right.
Maciek Fibrick (27:50):
Look, I guess when you go back to the days of
aqtf 2007, 2011, the standardswere a lot more prescriptive.
The standard said this is whatyou have to include, this is,
etc.
And.
And so it was therefore a tickbox and um, and I'll never
forget the words that carolhunter once said to me, it's
like compliance seems to be thispendulum and we go from one
(28:13):
side to the other.
And so we go extreme to anotherextreme of let anything go.
And then we realise that we'renot doing our job.
So let's start doing everythingto control.
And so, as the standards forthe last 10 years haven't
changed, the auditing practiceshave significantly changed, from
(28:34):
having multiple attempts torectify to having no attempts
and basically being shut down atinitial registration for having
a couple of words wrong, to nowwhat I think would almost be
fair, because they're using thatsort of risk-based approach to
say, look, you're almost there,there's a minor deficiency here,
(28:57):
but so you're good to go tolook, this is non-compliant.
We'll give you the number ofdays to fix this to you know
what you really need to go backto the drawing board.
We're going to reject thisapplication until you've got at
least a level of understandingthat, uh, that you can actually
manage your rto.
So if that is implementedconsistently, that I'm okay with
(29:19):
that.
Angela Connell-Richards (29:20):
But consistency is that key word
yeah, yeah, and I don't know howthey're going to ensure that
they've got the consistency.
Um, I I've I've had a lot ofbad experiences with
inconsistency, but so some ofthe changes that we've seen
because I won't go down thatpath now because that's like
(29:41):
another hour conversation sowhat we've seen is, in
particular, initial registration.
So, for initial registration,it seems to be every time we're
submitting they're asking forsomething new at the moment.
So I think they're still tryingto work out, well, what's going
to be the best with under thenew standards.
(30:02):
So some of the things um,they're asking us to resubmit
documents.
They're asking uh, the bigthing has been the
organizational profile.
They're asking for that a lotmore now, much more for re-reg.
They're expecting a businessplan.
So we're seeing that more andmore now and that business plan.
Maciek Fibrick (30:24):
Well, it's associated with the FVRA, so
they're asking for the.
Angela Connell-Richards (30:28):
FVRA then says the business plan so
business clients that haven'thad to do an FVRA.
Maciek Fibrick (30:33):
Oh, really.
So financial viability, yeah,wow.
Angela Connell-Richards (30:35):
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 whathave you set for the next three
to five years?
And how are you going to managethat process of expansion, if
you're going to expand,including how many trainers, per
course, that you're deliveringand training product and all
(30:58):
that sort of stuff?
That's what they're asking for.
Maciek Fibrick (31:00):
And on the flip side, I literally finished a
re-reg audit last week wherethey audited 2.2 and that was
the only clause.
They audited for the re-reg andthey asked for none of that.
Angela Connell-Richards (31:12):
Wow.
Maciek Fibrick (31:14):
And the closing meeting went for 45, 50 minutes.
So, yeah, this is thatinconsistency, and I understand
that it's risk-based and Iunderstand that there's
information behind the scenesthat ASQA may be looking at, but
it makes our job very hard.
Angela Connell-Richards (31:32):
Yeah, yeah, which is why we always
have to come up with differentcontingencies.
So the big thing that we focuson when we're working with our
clients is the worst-casescenario.
Maciek Fibrick (31:44):
Yeah.
Angela Connell-Richards (31:46):
And sometimes we've prepared our
clients so well that we justbreeze through and they go oh,
why did you make us do all ofthis stuff?
Maciek Fibrick (31:53):
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 toprepare the clients as well as
we can for any audit scenarioyeah, yeah, it's, it's and you
(32:15):
know sorry to all the myauditing colleagues that I know
out there, but it's a sadreality that you almost also
have to prepare the client oncewe know who the auditor is.
Angela Connell-Richards (32:24):
Yes, true, true, exactly.
We actually have an auditor'smatrix where we have the auditor
, different clients and and thestandards and what did they deem
compliant and non-compliant asa matrix.
And then we also include whatare their additional.
We call them idiosyncrasies,but the little things that they
(32:49):
like to have Quirks, quirks,their little quirks, whether
they're accepted for you to buythem a cup of coffee or not,
correct, um, but we, we and thatmapping that I did.
It was just incredible lookingat the inconsistencies between
the auditors.
Um, we haven't done it for alittle while, uh, but yes, we
(33:11):
definitely will be looking atthat again for the new standards
and see how we go, but I thinkaudit-wise it definitely has
been an improvement from four orfive years ago 100% and again,
just on a side note for that,and I agree with you, but your
approach to preparing the clientand it's exactly the same
(33:32):
approach that I've got is that Iwant.
Maciek Fibrick (33:34):
I want the, the assessor, the auditor to to feel
confident that when they'retalking to my client, they're
talking to the client and not meand whilst, like I said, I
might be there in the backgroundas an interpreter or so forth,
but I really my aim is alwaysthat there is nothing that the
(33:55):
client won't know if asked, ifthey've been studious enough to
make it an effort to understandthe policies as well.
And that's even outside theaudit practice.
I mean the amount of people say, oh, there's again compliance,
blah, blah.
But anyone who's actually madean effort to understand and
learn the standards should knowthat they're not overly
(34:16):
cumbersome on most levels.
There are some things there aswell, but I always say I reckon
it would be harder to run a cafethan it would be an RTO.
You don't have food going off,you don't need to account for
wastage, you don't need toexpect you know, if it's a rainy
day, that you're not going tohave people coming through the
door, extra staff like at leastas an RTO, you know what to
(34:39):
expect almost every day and Ithink it's just a matter of
learning the standards and thesame with the new standards
coming in, make an effort to sitthere and read them as a team
and go.
How does this change?
How does this approach differto our current practice?
Angela Connell-Richards (34:55):
what are they saying?
What are they?
Asking for us yeah, or do sometraining on it, um like uh, the
way we deliver our training.
So I've this year I've got aworkshop that I do every month
that's on different uhcomponents of the standards, and
what I'm doing with that is I'mgiving activities to do as well
, so you can actually get yourteam together and do little mini
(35:19):
audits or reviews to see whereyou're at when it comes to the
new requirements.
Maciek Fibrick (35:29):
Yeah, profession to train.
To pick one of the standards orone of the performance
indicators and say prepare apresentation for the rest of us
and use it as a way for us toalso evaluate your training
processes and how you preparefor work.
Great, idea.
And use it as a PD session.
Angela Connell-Richards (35:47):
Yeah, love it.
I think that's a great idea.
Yeah, yeah, all right, so we'regoing to wrap up this one.
Uh, this has been fantastic tohear your views on the breaking
down of the standards.
Um, in our next interview,we're going to be going through
the future of vocationaleducation and what we think is
well.
I think we'll be looking intoour crystal balls of what we
(36:10):
think may be happening in thefuture.
So thank you, maychek, forbeing my guest today, and I look
forward to a year ofconversations about the sector
and the new standards.
Maciek Fibrick (36:26):
Thanks, thanks so much.
Angela Connell-Richards (36:31):
Right.
Maciek Fibrick (36:35):
I think it's starting.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.