Back to Standards Index

Certification – Revoked

Standards: Clause 3.1

The RTO issues AQF certification documentation only to a learner whom it has assessed as meeting the requirements of the training product as specified in the relevant training package or VET accredited course.

Related documents/links

AQF issuance policy ASQA website: Provide secure certification

QCI considerations

  • Does your RTO have a documented process for revoking a previously issued certification?
  • Does the documented process state the circumstances that would mean revocation, such as serious academic misconduct, plagiarism or collusion?
  • Does the documented process state who would authorise that certification be revoked?
  • Does the documented process state how revoked certification is to be recorded?
  • Does the documented process state how the learner is notified of such action?
  • Are grounds for revoking certification included in the Learner Handbook?

Scenario 1

XYZ RTO discovered that one candidate had copied the complete assessment for one unit of another candidate. They were in different cohorts and had different assessors, so it was only discovered during a quality check a couple of months after both learners had graduated and been issued statements of attainment. Investigation proved that the learner whose work was copied was unaware of the situation.

What should the RTO do about the issued statement of attainment?

The statement of attainment must be revoked, and all evidence of the plagiarism and the investigation must be kept on file. The RTO may choose to offer the learner another opportunity to complete the assessment, but if this happens and the person completes it successfully, then another statement of attainment, with a different date, must be issued.


Scenario 2

XYZ RTO revoked the statements of attainment of two learners who colluded to complete their assessment in one unit of competency. Both learners appealed this decision on the grounds that they were unaware that helping each other write answers was not acceptable, as there was no mention of this in the Learner Handbook or anywhere else, and it had never been explained to them that it constituted an improper practice.

Do the learners have grounds for appeal?

There was no written or verbal direction in advance regarding cheating, serious academic misconduct, plagiarism or collusion, so it is possible that the appeal would be upheld.