Let’s try and look at this with a bit more context again by bringing up our favorite set of documents, the new standards. I love them. They look so good. What are you talking about? Oh dear. They look so much better than the old ones. We could have used some colour. I think I prefer the policy guidance because at least I’ve got the color cues for the different Yeah, I I I did I did like that too. But I like that this is structured in a way that’s more actually in a way it looks similar to a unit of competency. So that’s what I can hear. I can hear the unit of competency, the structure of the unit of competency performance indicators. I like that they’re making it, they’re trying to make it recognisable but at the same time it’s still the standard. It requires a lot of interpretation.

So this one here is my favourite one at the moment. And really, I know a lot of Yes. Anything that requires questioning is my favourite. I know most people look at this and just run away and go, “Oh my god, 2.2. Vet students who are advised prior to enrollment about the suitability of a training product.” That’s a long sentence and there’s a lot of commas in that sentence. This is one, two, three. Yeah, three commas in a single sentence and then indicators to make it even more fun. But this is where we can now point to this new question. What does that mean for us for this training product?

So if I was a cert 3 individual support provider, I would look at this and say, okay, what does that mean for our organization and our students and our staff, our processes for cert individual support alone? There’s no need for me to try and answer this in the context of my entire scope because I can’t. So this is where the question really drives context. So I can break this question down. I can say okay prior to enrollment what does that mean for our RTO for C 3 individuals supports suitability for training? What does that mean for our RTO for C 3 individual support? Digital literacy. What does that mean for our RTO based on C 3 individual support? So this same question you can keep throwing at this and then you can actually start answering it now. You can actually start saying well actually the digital literacy requirements for certain individual support for our organization requires access to internet access to logging onto a web-based platform like an LMS. They need to be able to engage with Microsoft Office. You can actually start answering the question because you’ve narrowed it down to such a sharp context saying what does this mean for our RTO for this single training product — this no longer looks like hieroglyphics.

Yeah I agree that’s the first step. I agree completely I love this and let me jump in here and just add to your concept. I think this is really really powerful and the way that you just broke that down on the standard is also really powerful with this single question. You mentioned before that you know legislation requires interpretation and that’s absolutely true but I would say that there’s less interpretation required for these standards than in any of the other standards that we’ve had in the last 30 years and I go right back to AR. So in the 90s if we think about R4, AQTF 2, 57, 10 MVR, 12 standards, 15, and now standards 25 — these are I would suggest the clearest standards of any of the standards that we’ve had in the last 30 years. Doesn’t mean that providers necessarily like these or necessarily are able to fully understand and implement them easily. This is where your question comes in.