Introduction: The Era of Unaccountability
In the current political and regulatory landscape of Australia, we are witnessing a disturbing trend. As the Deputy Opposition Leader recently remarked, referencing the Albanese administration, we are potentially dealing with "the most unaccountable, the least transparent government in Australian history." While that statement operates on the macro level of federal politics, those of us operating within the Vocational Education and Training (VET) and CRICOS (Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students) sectors are feeling the tremors of this unaccountability on a micro level every single day.
We are navigating an environment where interpretation supersedes legislation, where auditor subjectivity overrides operational reality, and where the goalposts of compliance seem to shift not just between audits, but within the very definitions of education itself.
The latest manifestation of this regulatory disconnect was brought to my attention recently by a senior industry colleague, and it highlights a level of bureaucratic absurdity that threatens to destabilise the operational integrity of RTOs across the country. We are now hearing reports that the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) is flagging the time taken to mark final assessments—after student submission—as an "illegal holiday period."
The proposition is startling in its lack of educational logic: auditors are directing RTOs that the course duration must ostensibly end the moment the student submits their final assessment. Any time scheduled thereafter for marking, grading, quality assurance, or the processing of results is being viewed as "dead time" or unauthorised leave.
This interpretation is not just a minor administrative gripe; it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the assessment lifecycle. It places providers in a quintessential Catch-22, forcing them to choose between logistical impossibility and regulatory non-compliance.
The "Illegal Holiday" Fallacy
To understand the gravity of this situation, we must first look at the mechanism of the complaint. As my colleague noted, auditors have reportedly directed providers that "course completion/duration is to be set at the date the students submitted their final assessments – even though these have not been marked."
The implication here is profound. It suggests that the regulator views the educational process as a factory line that ceases to exist the moment the widget (the assessment) leaves the student’s hands. It suggests that the act of assessment—the marking, the moderation, the feedback, and the judgment of competence—is not part of the course duration.
If an RTO schedules two weeks at the end of a 52-week qualification to ensure that final projects are marked, grades are entered, and academic integrity checks are conducted, they are now being accused of engaging in an "illegal holiday."
The Definition of "Course Duration"
Under the National Code and the ESOS Act, course duration is critical because it dictates the length of the student visa (CoE). The regulator’s concern, historically, has been to prevent "visa factories"—schools that stretch a 6-month course into 2 years with endless breaks to allow students to work. We all agree with stamping out that practice.
However, conflating a grading period with a holiday is a dangerous leap in logic.
A "holiday" is a period where no educational activity occurs. A "marking and review period" is a period where the most critical educational activity occurs: the determination of competence. To label the administrative processing of assessment as a "holiday" is to invalidate the work of the assessor and the rights of the student to receive a confirmed outcome before their CoE expires.
The Assessment Black Hole
The most glaring flaw in this "submission equals completion" logic is the reality of the VET sector: Competency is not guaranteed upon submission.
As I discussed with my colleagues, this narrow interpretation completely overlooks the reality of reassessments. If the course legally ends the moment a student hits "upload" on their final assignment, how do we manage a 'Not Yet Competent' (NYC) result?
In a functional educational environment, the timeline looks like this:
-
Week 48: Student submits final major project.
-
Week 49: Assessor marks the project. The student is found NYC on two criteria.
-
Week 50: Feedback is provided. Student prepares re-submission.
-
Week 51: Student resubmits. Assessor re-marks.
-
Week 52: Competency confirmed. Graduation processing.
If an auditor enforces that the course ended at Week 48 (upon first submission), then Weeks 49 through 52 exist in a regulatory black hole.
-
Is the student still enrolled?
-
Is the student insured?
-
Is the RTO providing training without a valid CoE?
-
Is the student breaching visa conditions by studying past their end date?
By forcing the end date to match the submission date, the regulator is essentially demanding that every student pass on the first try, instantly, with zero turnaround time for marking. It is a demand for clairvoyance, not compliance.
The Evidence from the Frontline
This is not a theoretical fear. An experienced voice in our sector confirmed the erratic nature of these audit outcomes.
"I have previously labelled 2 weeks at the end of a qualification as Final Assessment, Review and Appeal period and been found non-compliant. I have also set out 1 week at the completion of the qualification as a review and graduation period, and this was also found non-compliant."
This experience is a chilling indictment of the current audit inconsistency. The provider attempted to be transparent. They explicitly listed the activities: "Final Assessment, Review and Appeal." These are legitimate, mandated parts of the 2025 Standards for Registered Training Organisations. Every student has the right to appeal an assessment decision. To appeal a decision, time must pass between the submission and the finalisation of the grade.
Yet, ASQA found this non-compliant.
Their response, according to this source, was that "the duration of the course included the end of the qualification holiday period." This implies that ASQA believes the assessment process is instantaneous.
This creates the "catch-22" I mentioned earlier.
-
Scenario A: You schedule time for marking. Result: Non-compliant for "illegal holidays" or insufficient face-to-face hours during those weeks.
-
Scenario B: You do not schedule time for marking and end the course at submission. Result: You risk non-compliance under Quality Area 1 (Training and Assessment) for not providing adequate time for reassessment and appeals, or non-compliance under PRISMS management for having students active past their CoE end date during re-marking.
We did not see this coming in earlier audits. It suggests a shift in auditor guidance that has not been communicated to the sector. It is a "gotcha" moment—a trap where administrative reality clashes with a theoretical ideal of "100% attendance until the final second."
The 20-Hour Contact Dilemma
The root of this absurdity likely lies in the CRICOS requirement for 20 scheduled contact hours per week.
If a course is 52 weeks long, the regulator expects 20 hours of face-to-face (or equivalent) delivery in every single one of those teaching weeks.
When an RTO schedules a "Marking Week" at the end, the auditor asks: "What are the students doing for 20 hours this week?"
If the answer is "Waiting for their grades," the auditor ticks a box saying the RTO is non-compliant with the 20-hour rule.
If the answer is "Working on their final assessment," the auditor asks, "But they submitted it on Monday. What did they do Tuesday through Friday?"
As was rightly pointed out in recent discussions: "The trick with this is, what are the students going to do during marking week? It can’t be training or assessment, as that is all finished. Students have to meet the contact hours. So what will they do? What is in the TAS? Celebrations and finalising assignments are not permitted because of the contact hours requirement."
This forces RTOs to engage in a charade. To avoid non-compliance, providers are incentivised to invent "busy work" just to keep the clock ticking.
The "Solution" that shouldn't be necessary
In our discussion, I suggested that we might need to start mandating face-to-face attendance during that marking week for things like:
-
"Exit Interviews"
-
"Industry Transition Workshops"
-
"Portfolio Compilation Sessions"
We might have to explicitly label the period "Final Assessment & Review" in the TAS (Training and Assessment Strategy) and create a rigid timetable where students must sit in a classroom while their papers are being marked in the next room, just to satisfy the 20-hour requirement.
But let’s be honest: Is this quality education? Or is this bureaucratic theatre?
Forcing students to attend a "celebration" or a "graduation review" that is disguised as a formal class just to tick a compliance box is a waste of the student's time and the RTO's resources. Yet, the regulator leaves us no choice. If we send them home while we mark, it’s an "illegal holiday." If we keep them in class with nothing new to teach, it’s poor pedagogy.
The Inconsistency of Audits
The most frustrating aspect of this saga, and indeed the current state of the VET sector, is the inconsistency.
As noted in our discussion, many of us have been part of audits where this was not looked into. I have been through audits where the "Marking Week" was accepted as a standard administrative necessity.
When peers call the new interpretation "Silly," they are being polite. It is chaotic.
How can one RTO be penalised for a practice that another RTO ignores? It points to a lack of standardisation in auditor training. It suggests that individual auditors are applying their own personal interpretations of the National Code rather than a centralised, practical policy.
This inconsistency breeds fear. It paralyses RTO management. Instead of focusing on improving training materials or investing in better equipment, we spend our days parsing the semantics of "duration" versus "contact hours," trying to predict which interpretation the specific auditor we get assigned will favour.
The Unaccountable Government
This brings us back to the broader political context. When industry leaders feel that the government is "unaccountable" and "least transparent," it is because of issues exactly like this.
Transparency would look like this: ASQA releases a Fact Sheet explicitly stating: "RTOs must/must not schedule weeks for marking. If marking takes place, students must/must not be in attendance."
Instead, we get silence from the top and "gotcha" findings from the auditors on the ground. We get moved goalposts. We get a system where an RTO can operate in good faith for five years, only to be told that their standard operating procedure—common to universities and schools worldwide—is suddenly "illegal."
This aligns with a broader sentiment that the current administration is disconnected from the operational realities of business owners. The VET sector is the engine room of Australia’s skills economy. We train the chefs, the carers, the builders, the IT professionals. We cannot function if we are constantly looking over our shoulder, waiting to be penalised for taking the time to mark an assessment properly.
The Human Cost
Beyond the paperwork, there is a human cost to this bureaucracy.
The Assessors: Assessors are already under immense pressure. If the "course ends at submission" rule is enforced, assessors will be forced to mark at breakneck speeds. The quality of feedback will drop. The nuance of assessment—the ability to spot plagiarism, to check references, to weigh a borderline student’s competency—will be sacrificed on the altar of "speed to completion."
The Students: International students are incredibly vulnerable to visa breaches. If an RTO creates a complex "Exit Interview" schedule just to satisfy an auditor, and a student misses it because they thought they had finished their course, that student’s attendance drops. Their visa is at risk. All because the regulator couldn't accept that a week off while waiting for grades is a normal part of the academic cycle.
The Administrators: The mental load on compliance managers is unsustainable. Trying to write a TAS that satisfies a contradictory set of rules—"Provide quality marking time" vs "Do not have non-contact weeks"—leads to burnout. It drives good people out of the sector.
A Call for Common Sense
We need a resolution. We cannot continue to operate in a sector where "tidying up issues," as was mentioned in our industry group, is viewed as a regulatory breach.
1. A Standardised "Administrative Buffer" The National Code should be updated to explicitly allow for an "Administrative Buffer" at the end of a CRICOS course. This period (e.g., 2 weeks) should be exempt from the 20-hour contact requirement, provided the student has submitted all assessment tasks. This acknowledges the reality of marking, quality assurance, and certification issuance.
2. Recognition of "Assessment" as "Course Duration" We need a clear ruling that "Assessment" includes the marking of the assessment. The course is not over until the result is finalised. Therefore, the duration includes the marking time.
3. Auditor Consistency Training: ASQA must ensure that its auditors are not making policy on the fly. If "Marking Weeks" is illegal, tell the whole sector, provide a transition period, and explain how re-assessments should be handled. Do not penalise individual providers retroactively for a widespread industry practice.
The assertion that an RTO is engaging in an "illegal holiday" because they take time to mark assessments is an absurdity that serves no one. It does not protect students. It does not improve quality. It merely adds another layer of stress to a sector already buckling under the weight of red tape.
As we look at the broader criticisms of the current government regarding transparency and accountability, the VET sector serves as a microcosm of the problem. We are drowning in interpretation, starved of clarity, and punished for practicality.
To my colleagues across the sector: we must push back. We must document these audit findings. We must demand that the TAS be viewed as a living document of educational strategy, not a rigid contract of incarceration for students who just want their grades.
If we cannot pause to mark a paper without breaking the law, then the law is broken, not the RTO.
