Academic governance: the charter, the committees, and the standards behind them

Complete Hospitality Training is a privately owned registered training organisation (RTO) whose primary purpose is to provide high quality, student centred vocational education courses in hospitality.

To promote and maintain academic quality, we have incorporated an Academic Governance Charter into our operations.

To advise our senior executive on specific matters relating to quality education and training, the Charter incorporates a Quality and Excellence Committee to provide high level strategic advice together with input from a Course Review Committee and an Industry Advisory Committee.

Our academic governance structure is supported by a Quality Assurance Management System that incorporates risk management policies and procedures. The monitoring of implementation of these policies and procedures forms part of the activities of the Quality and Excellence Committee.

Each Committee includes external experts to provide ideas, innovation and rigour to our academic operations. The Academic Governance Charter includes the terms of reference, membership and operational procedures for each Committee.

Why an RTO has this machinery at all

Academic governance in the VET sector is not a voluntary quality badge. Part 4 of the Outcome Standards for RTOs — the quality area headed "Governance" — sets out four standards that an RTO must be able to demonstrate against, and the committee structure described above is how we discharge them. It is worth setting the two side by side, because it explains why the committees exist in the shape they do.

Standard 4.1 — integrity and accountability

The outcome the regulator looks for is that "an NVR registered training organisation operates with integrity and maintains accountability for the delivery of quality services". The performance indicators reach the people at the top: the organisation and its governing persons must be fit and proper persons, having regard to the Fit and Proper Person Requirements made under section 186 of the Act; governing persons must be suitable persons to oversee the operation of the organisation; they must act diligently and make informed decisions that facilitate compliance; and they must lead a culture of integrity, fairness and transparency in the organisation's delivery of services.

That last indicator is the reason a charter alone is not enough. A charter documents intent. The standard asks whether the people who sign it actually behave that way.

Standard 4.2 — roles and responsibilities

The outcome is that "roles and responsibilities of NVR registered training organisation staff and third parties are clearly defined and understood". We must support staff to understand the parts of the Outcome Standards relevant to their own role, inform staff of changes to regulatory or legislative requirements that may affect us, have a system for ensuring any third parties meet the same requirements and know their obligations, and keep roles and responsibilities well understood and documented so that decision-making is accountable.

This is where the Charter's terms of reference do real work: a committee whose remit is written down can be held to it.

Standard 4.3 — risk management

The outcome is that "any risks to VET students, staff and the organisation itself are identified and managed". Four indicators sit under it, and they are broader than most people expect of an academic governance document:

• risks to VET students, staff and the organisation are identified, managed and reviewed;
• the financial position, financial performance and cashflows of the organisation are managed, monitored and understood by governing persons — and separately, under section 24 of the Act, an RTO must comply with the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements;
• there is a system for identifying, managing and disclosing any real or apparent conflicts of interest; and
• where training or assessment is offered to students aged under 18, risks to their safety and wellbeing are identified and managed by having regard to the training content and modes of delivery, and in accordance with the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations.

The under-18 indicator is live for us, not theoretical. Certificate II level qualifications are typical entry points for school-age students, and the Victorian RSA pathway expressly contemplates under-18 candidates completing training. Our Child Safety Code of Conduct and Child Protection Policy sit alongside the governance structure for that reason. See policies for the published documents.

Standard 4.4 — monitoring, evaluation and continuous improvement

The outcome is that the organisation "undertakes systematic monitoring and evaluation of the organisation to support quality delivery and the continuous improvement of services". We must have a system for monitoring and evaluating our performance against the Outcome Standards and the Compliance Requirements, use the outcomes of that monitoring to inform continuous improvement, and have mechanisms to lawfully collect and analyse data — including feedback from students, staff, industry, VET regulators, State and Territory training authorities, and employers of current or former students.

Standard 4.4 carries a personal signature. It is one of the two matters an RTO's Chief Executive Officer must expressly declare in the Annual Declaration on Compliance. That declaration must be completed by the person legally responsible for the registration of the RTO — the listed Chief Executive Officer — in the approved form published on the National Register, and it requires the RTO to declare whether it currently meets the requirements of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 inclusive of the Outcome Standards and Compliance Requirements, and whether it undertakes systematic monitoring and evaluation of the organisation to support quality delivery and continuous improvement. The reporting period is the 12 months specified by the National VET Regulator.

So the loop closes on an individual: the committees generate the evidence, and the CEO signs for it annually.

What the Course Review Committee is actually reviewing against

Two standards define the work.

Standard 1.3, assessment system fit for purpose. Assessment must be consistent with the requirements of the training product; assessment tools must be reviewed prior to use to ensure assessment can be conducted consistently with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence; and the outcomes of those reviews must inform changes to the tools. Reviewing a tool after a cohort has been assessed with it does not satisfy this standard.

Standard 1.5, validation of assessment. The outcome is that "the assessment system is quality assured by appropriately skilled and credentialled persons through a regular process of validating assessment practices and judgements". The requirements that shape a validation schedule are specific:

• every training product on our scope of registration is validated at least once every five years, and more frequently where we become aware of risks to training outcomes, where the training product changes, or where we receive relevant feedback from students, trainers, assessors or industry;
• a risk-based approach determines which components of the assessment system are validated and the sample size of assessments validated for a given training product;
• validation is undertaken by one or more people who collectively hold industry competencies, skills and knowledge relevant to the training product, a practical understanding of current industry practices, and one of the credentials for validation specified in the Credential Policy;
• the outcome of a validation is not solely determined by a person who designed or delivered the training or assessment; and
• the outcomes of validation must be used to inform changes to the assessment system.

The fourth point is the structural reason a committee exists rather than a reviewer. Separating the designer from the judge is a governance requirement, not a courtesy.

What the Industry Advisory Committee is for

Standard 1.2 sets the outcome: "engagement with industry, employer and community representatives effectively informs the industry relevance of training offered by the NVR registered training organisation". We must demonstrate how we identify relevant industry, employer and community representatives and seek meaningful advice and feedback from them; that we use that advice and feedback to inform changes to training and assessment strategies and practices; and that training reflects current industry practice.

Note the word "meaningful". A list of names is not engagement, and neither is a survey nobody acts on. The standard is drafted so that the test is whether advice changed something.

This is also why the Charter puts external experts on each committee rather than only on the industry one. Hospitality practice moves — menus, equipment, licensing obligations, service models — and an internal-only committee will eventually be reviewing against the practice it inherited.

Acknowledgement of Country

Complete Hospitality Training acknowledges our campus is located on the ancestral lands of the Bunurong Boon Wurrung and Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung peoples of the Eastern Kulin Nation. We pay our respect to their Elders past, present and emerging.

There is a standard that connects to this, and it is new. Standard 2.5 requires that "the learning environment promotes and supports the diversity of VET students", with two performance indicators: that the organisation fosters a safe and inclusive learning environment for VET students, and that it fosters a culturally safe learning environment for First Nations people. No equivalent clause existed in the 2015 Standards. Cultural safety is now a governance obligation in its own right, measured on the learning environment rather than on the statement.

Where to verify any of this

We would rather you checked than took our word for it.

Our own governance documents — the Academic Governance Charter, the terms of reference for each Committee, the Quality Assurance Management System and our policy suite — are provider documents. Where this page summarises them it says so; the current document controls. Ask us for a copy.

Questions and answers

Is academic governance a legal requirement for an RTO, or a quality initiative?

Both, and the legal part is not optional. Part 4 of the Outcome Standards for RTOs sets out four governance standards — integrity and accountability, roles and responsibilities, risk management, and monitoring, evaluation and continuous improvement — that an RTO must be able to demonstrate against. How an RTO structures itself to meet them is its own choice; whether it meets them is not.

What is the Academic Governance Charter?

Our governing document for academic quality. It establishes the Quality and Excellence Committee, which provides high level strategic advice to our senior executive, with input from a Course Review Committee and an Industry Advisory Committee, and it sets out the terms of reference, membership and operational procedures for each. Ask us for a copy.

Who sits on the committees?

Each Committee includes external experts, alongside our own people, specifically to bring ideas, innovation and rigour from outside the organisation. The membership for each Committee is set out in the Charter.

Why do external members matter?

Two reasons, one of which is a standard. Standard 1.2 requires that training reflects current industry practice and that industry advice actually informs changes to training and assessment strategies, which is difficult to evidence from internal opinion alone. Separately, Standard 1.5 requires that the outcome of an assessment validation is not solely determined by a person who designed or delivered the training or assessment — so independence of judgement is built into the design, not added for appearances.

How often does assessment get validated?

Every training product on our scope of registration must be validated at least once every five years, and more often where we become aware of risks to training outcomes, where the training product changes, or where we receive relevant feedback from students, trainers, assessors or industry. Which components get validated, and how large a sample, is determined by a risk-based approach rather than a flat rule.

Who is allowed to validate assessment?

One or more people who collectively hold industry competencies, skills and knowledge relevant to the training product, a practical understanding of current industry practices relevant to it, and one of the credentials for validation specified in the Credential Policy. Collectively is the operative word — it can be a team, so long as the team covers all three.

Does the Course Review Committee look at assessment tools before or after they are used?

Before. Standard 1.3 requires that assessment tools are reviewed prior to use, to ensure assessment can be conducted consistently with the principles of assessment and rules of evidence, and that the outcomes of those reviews inform any necessary changes to the tools.

What does "fit and proper person" mean here?

It is a defined regulatory test, not a figure of speech. Standard 4.1 requires that the organisation and its governing persons are fit and proper persons having regard to the Fit and Proper Person Requirements made under section 186 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, and that governing persons are suitable persons to oversee the operation of the organisation.

Does governance cover our finances?

Yes. Standard 4.3 requires that the financial position, financial performance and cashflows of the organisation are managed, monitored and understood by governing persons, and section 24 of the Act separately requires compliance with the Financial Viability Risk Assessment Requirements. Academic governance and financial governance are not kept in separate rooms, because a provider that cannot fund delivery is a risk to its students.

How are conflicts of interest handled?

Standard 4.3 requires a system for identifying, managing and disclosing any real or apparent conflicts of interest. "Apparent" matters: a conflict does not have to have caused harm to require disclosure.

What extra protections apply to students under 18?

Where an RTO offers training or assessment to students aged under 18, Standard 4.3 requires risks to their safety and wellbeing to be identified and managed by having regard to the training content and modes of delivery, and in accordance with the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations as in force from time to time. Our Child Safety Code of Conduct and Child Protection Policy are published — see policies.

Who signs off on compliance each year?

The person legally responsible for the registration of the RTO, being the listed Chief Executive Officer, in an Annual Declaration on Compliance in the approved form published on the National Register. The declaration covers whether the RTO currently meets the requirements of the Act inclusive of the Outcome Standards and Compliance Requirements, and whether it undertakes systematic monitoring and evaluation of the organisation to support quality delivery and continuous improvement. The reporting period is the 12 months specified by the National VET Regulator.

What happens if something changes that affects compliance?

An RTO must notify the National VET Regulator of the occurrence of an event that would significantly affect its ability to comply with any of its obligations under the Act, within 10 business days after the event occurs. Governance exists in part to make sure such an event is noticed in the first place.

Is cultural safety part of governance?

It is a standard in its own right. Standard 2.5 requires an RTO to foster a safe and inclusive learning environment for VET students, and to foster a culturally safe learning environment for First Nations people. There was no equivalent clause in the 2015 Standards, so this is a 2025 addition and is assessed on the learning environment rather than on a statement of intent.

Where can I see CHT's registration and scope?

On training.gov.au under RTO 3722. That record shows our registration status, registration period and full scope of registration, including whether each qualification, skill set and unit is current and at what extent we hold it. For CRICOS, check cricos.education.gov.au under provider code 04242E.

More about us

Read about us for who we are and what we do, our story for how the organisation got here, policies for the published policy suite and student documents, and resources for student-facing material. If you are an employer, workplace training sets out how we deliver into workplaces.

Complete Hospitality Training (Vic) Pty Ltd, RTO 3722, CRICOS provider code 04242E, ABN 27 006 947 262. Level 3, 28 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne VIC 3000. Contact melbourne@cht.edu.au or +61 3 9654 1554.

Standard references on this page are to the Outcome Standards for Registered Training Organisations (F2025L00354) and the Compliance Requirements for NVR Registered Training Organisations (F2025L00355), and to the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. Where this page describes our own governance documents, the current document controls. Check the legislative instruments for the operative text and confirm course availability, delivery, fees and entry requirements with us before enrolling.