The Confusion: The Roles of Trainers, Assessors and Experts.

Trainers, assessors, Subject Matter Experts (SME)/industry consultants… all play a pivotal role in ensuring quality training and assessment, yet the boundaries between them can often blur. In the past, these roles have been referenced and used interchangeably at times, leading to confusion about who is responsible for what, and how they should work together.

As our sector relies on renewed terms and definitions as the Standards for RTOs 2025 come into effect, we need to rethink what we thought we knew about trainers/assessors and experts and how they work together, not to mention, how their employment and/or engagement conditions affect the RTO’s compliance.

The Standards and Credential Policy sets out clear expectations for trainers and assessors, but the definition of experts remains somewhat muddy. In this article, I will explore what it means for a trainer and/or an assessor to hold industry-relevant competencies, and why the distinction between these roles and an expert is crucial for maintaining compliant and effective RTO practices.

Who is Who?

Let’s start by breaking down the differences between a trainer, an assessor, and an industry expert. First, we need to refer to the Standards definitions.

The Standards for RTOs 2025 and the Credential Policy clearly define the role and requirements for trainers and assessors as distinctly different from each other:

From this, we can easily assume that persons delivering training and assessment – for all intents and purposes – are considered trainers and assessors, yes?

On the other hand, an “expert” is referenced in the standards many times, but there is no clear definition of their role. However, by virtue of the definition of trainer and assessor, it is safe to assume that an “expert” does not deliver training or conduct assessment.

Why? Because if they did, they would be called a trainer or assessor, wouldn’t they?!

Standard 3.2

Ok, so if trainers/assessors conduct training and assessment, and experts are, well, not trainers and assessors, then Standard 3.2 defines the requirements for trainers and assessors:

According to these requirements, anyone delivering training or assessment must hold the credentials that are specified in the Credential Policy. I will summarise them below (I am sure you can reference these directly from the Credential Policy on your own):

1. TAE Credential (1A) – A trainer/assessor must hold a TAE qualification (such as TAE40116) to deliver training and assessment.

OR

2. Actively Working Towards TAE (1C) – If an individual is working towards obtaining the TAE qualification, they must be under the direction of someone who holds a TAE credential. We can call this person a “Trainer/assessor in training”.

OR

3. TAE Delivery Skill Set (1D) – Alternatively, a TAE delivery skill set may be acceptable as long as the person works under the direction of someone with a TAE credential. So, this would be a trainer – but not an assessor.

4. TAE Assessor Skills Set (1B) – An assessor, well, you guessed it, conducts assessment, and can do so on their own.

In essence, the roles of trainers and assessors are clearly credentialed and regulated. If someone holds one of the TAE products as defined in the Credential Policy and is engaged to deliver training and/or assessment, then we can confidently deduce that they are acting as a trainer and/or an assessor.

Standard 3.3

To consider the entire picture, we need to bring in the next standard:

From this, we can now make a few further assumptions:

1. Trainers and assessors must hold current industry skills and knowledge relevant to what they are delivering.

   1. Ergo… be experts from their industry? Maybe… or pretty close? Let’s just leave this here for now.

2. Credentials (as in - TAE) and competencies (as in - industry) are referenced differently, so they must be two different things.

3. Under Standard 3.3 experts can be engaged by the RTO to deliver training… but only when the training product or the student cohort requires it, or if there is a specific need for said expert.

   1. But the Standards are not referring to them as a “trainer”, so they must be titled something else - “an expert who delivers training” maybe?

   2. Experts still must demonstrate industry competencies, skills and knowledge (not credentials specifically) – just like our trainers, but they should also have specialised industry or subject matter expertise… so beyond the level expected of a trainer (who is also required to hold industry competencies, skills and knowledge).

4. Experts can deliver training and conduct assessment (as an “expert’, not as a “trainer/assessor”), but only under direction from a trainer/assessor.

   1. A level of direction, supervision, monitoring and guidance is therefore required to ensure the integrity of VET is upheld - as they are “experts”, not “trainers/assessors”.

   2. The expert could also be a “trainer/assessor in training”, but a level of direction is still required.

   3. Experts can support an assessor to make an assessment judgment – but they can’t do it on their own.

   4. The RTO is still responsible for the supervised training and assessment conducted by the expert.

Gone are the days of putting an assessor with insufficient industry experience, and an expert without a TAE in the same room.

Makes you wonder then, if both the trainer/assessor and the expert are required to maintain industry competencies, skills and knowledge, then it would be quite rare to have the need to engage an expert in the first place, particularly when the RTO must do so in reference to a training product or specific cohort (and then prove it was even necessary).

Third Party Arrangements for Experts

Now, we know that experts engaged by the RTO are not considered third parties – the compliance requirements tell us this very clearly:

It’s important to note that whilst trainers and assessors can be experts in their fields, experts cannot operate with the same responsibilities in an RTO as a trainer and assessor. The RTO can engage an expert to deliver training and support assessment, but… the expert is subject to working under direction and for a specific training product, cohort or other need. The RTO maintains full oversight of the training and assessment; therefore, Third-Party arrangements are not required – regardless of whether the expert is paid or not.

Unless... the expert holds the relevant TAE credential and suitable TAE knowledge, skills, and experience. If they did, this would then categorise them as a “trainer/assessor” rather than an expert. Relying on the TAE to permit the delivery of training sessions and assessment judgements automatically shifts the individual from the "expert" category to the "trainer/assessor" category.

This means that experts who are qualified trainers/assessors and engaged for training delivery and assessment services are not considered experts under the Standards - Instead, they are considered trainers and assessors.

In addition, if an RTO contracts a trainer/assessor and has them deliver training and assessment NOT under direction, then they are NOT an “expert”, and ASQA has confirmed that they are NOT subject to a reportable third party arrangement.

My other article on Third Party arrangements goes down this nasty rabbit hole, so I won’t regurgitate it here. But readers beware… If you contract a trainer/assessor – there is more at play that just the Standards for RTOs – the inconsistency across jurisdictions makes for a very complex environment.

Now that I’ve dropped that mic, I want to move now to the expertise that a trainer/assessor is expected to hold.

Trainer/Assessor Industry Expertise

While it’s clear that trainers/assessors must hold certain credentialing qualifications (e.g., TAE credentials), industry competence, skills and knowledge is a core requirement of Standard 3.3:

Industry Competencies, skills and knowledge – at least to the level of the training product being delivered/assessed.

First things first - Trainers/assessors must have industry competencies, skills and knowledge…

“Have”.

It must be provable.

So, what are industry competencies?

When we talk about industry competencies in the context of the Standards for RTOs 2025, it's important to note that the Standards do not provide a specific, clear definition for this term. So, like many terms in the VET sector, we must interpret it based on something else. Let’s revisit the Standards for RTOs 2015 and use these legacy definitions (alternatively, I guess you could make up your own?):

In simple terms, having industry competencies, skills and knowledge means you possess the skills required by the industry to perform relevant tasks in the workplace – and you can prove them - whether or not these skills were gained through formal training or on-the-job experience.

So, to be clear, having “industry competencies” does not necessarily mean the trainer/assessor needs to have been awarded the specific training product they deliver. Remember – there is a clear difference between “credential” and “competency” in the 2025 Standards.

The Policy Guidance for this standard state:

Instead, “industry competencies” means that the trainer/assessor must possess the practical skills and industry knowledge that are equivalent to or aligned with the training product being delivered – and this must be proven.

It is clear that the trainer/assessor’s industry competencies should be at least at the same level as the training product they deliver. So, a trainer/assessor should have a working knowledge and skills that meet the standard required by the specific training product.

This brings in the debate then, of what happens when a trainer/assessor delivers a Certificate II program but holds higher-level competencies, such as those associated with a Diploma?

Trainers/assessors with higher-level competencies can bring valuable industry expertise to the training process. The challenge, then, is ensuring that their advanced knowledge does not overshadow the core competencies and learning outcomes required by the Certificate II training product.

Let’s unpack this scenario and explore the implications:

For this example, let’s say that a trainer/assessor holds a high-level qualification, in this case, a BSB50120 Diploma of Business, and is tasked with delivering a BSB20120 Certificate II in Workplace Skills to a new cohort. In this case, the trainer’s credentials exceed the level required by the students, but the key question is whether they have the relevant competencies, skills and knowledge needed to deliver the certificate II compliantly.

• By virtue of holding the Diploma of Business, the trainer would likely have industry knowledge and skills that are relevant to the business environment, but these skills may not align directly with the specific requirements and foundational units in the Certificate II.

To determine whether the trainer/assessor’s industry competencies align with the requirements of the Certificate II program, we need to examine the unit structure of both qualifications and determine if the higher-level competencies of the Diploma align with the unit requirements of the Certificate II. This is where competency mapping comes in.

Competency Mapping

Competency mapping is the process of comparing the competencies required by a specific training product (in this case, the Certificate II) against the competencies (and credentials) held by the trainer/assessor – or even expert (e.g. someone holding a Diploma). The goal is to ensure that the trainer's (or experts) industry competencies, knowledge and skills meet those required by the Certificate II units, even if the person’s formal credentials exceed the level of the qualification they are delivering.

If a trainer/assessor’s (or expert’s) competencies are found to be insufficient or too advanced for the level of the training product, the person would not meet the requirements to deliver that training product.

So, what happens then?

To address these gaps between the competencies, skills and knowledge held by the person, and the training product being delivered, the person may need additional training, professional development, or mentorship to develop their level II skills – all of which must be evidenced to prove that they hold the competencies required.

Now, suggesting that a Diploma-level trainer or expert may need additional training or professional development can be a delicate matter, particularly when saying they do not hold the competencies required of a level II, and these conversations can often lead to frustration or defensiveness. We won’t go into it here, but one should approach the situation with empathy, respect, and with a focus on opportunity.

Ok, back to it.

Industry Skills and Currency

This is a real hot topic at the moment, in respect to the Standards for RTOs 2025, so let’s investigate it.

Standard 3.3, in addition to holding current industry competencies also mandates that trainer/assessors must:

Unfortunately, “understanding of current industry practices” are not defined (in whole or in part) in the new Standards. So, we can only assume from the meanings given to these terms from the English language, that a trainer/assessor only needs to understand current industry practices… not actually perform them.

Let’s turn to the relevant clause of the 2015 Standards – just to see how the current standards differ:

Luckily for us, “current industry skills” was defined in the glossary:

You may be surprised to note that that it doesn’t say anything about actual skills being performed here either…

• It says “current industry skills may be informed by” industry consultation. Not sure how one’s skills can be “informed by” consultation? But anyway;

• It says “knowledge of and/or experience” in industry techniques and processes – eluding to the fact that knowledge of industry on its own would be sufficient.

But it is pretty clear that the definition of the term does not mandate that actual skills needed to be performed within an industry setting.

We can see from the above excerpts that a practical experience in industry – where skills would actually be performed and honed, was only one of many other options – it was never essential.

But we have all come to expect that our TAE workforce should be able to demonstrate current industry skills – in the true meaning of the words – to avoid that awful cliché:

“Those who can’t, teach.”

Conclusion

As you reflect on these distinctions, definitions and comparisons… and maybe rethink everything you thought you knew, consider the impact on your own RTO’s workforce and compliance practices.

• Are your trainers and assessors aligned with the specific training products they are delivering?

• Do you contract experts to deliver training and assessment activities? And are they operating under direction?

As I wrap up this discussion, I encourage you to take a closer look at your trainer/assessor competencies, your engagement with experts and your third-party arrangements. While there may not be a one-size-fits-all answer, the reality is that the regulatory landscape is complex and evolving, and the responsibility lies with you to justify the actions of your RTO and its people in accordance with the Standards for RTOs 2025, the Compliance Requirements and the Credential Policy.