Key findings:

- Research, stakeholder reports and a number of ASQA’s previous strategic industry reviews show that concern about unduly short training is widespread and longstanding.

- Regulation of duration in VET is complex and confusing, and includes different requirements for duration for the two different types of nationally recognised training products.

- Other countries provide greater specification of duration, demonstrating that in competency-based training systems there are still circumstances in which mandating duration is considered a necessary means of regulating quality.

- There is significant risk that in many cases learners are not gaining the competencies specified in VET qualifications, leading to loss of confidence in vocational education and training as well as long-term costs to industry, individuals, the community and governments.

- More than a quarter of the 11,677 advertisements reviewed on ASQA-regulated RTOs’ websites that advertised duration for training package qualifications have a course duration below the minimum of the Australian Quality Framework (AQF) volume of learning range.

- Many providers offer good-quality training; however, these providers are facing increased pressure to either reduce quality or leave the market—because they cannot compete with providers offering unduly short and inadequate training programs.

- The long-term sustainability of the VET system is at risk unless the issue of unduly short training is definitively addressed.

- There is insufficient consistently presented and comparable information available to enable VET consumers to make informed choices between RTOs.

- Sensible and proportionate change to the VET regulatory framework will enable effective regulation of the amount of duration, provide industry with a lead role in addressing the risks of poor-quality training (by specifying their requirements), and empower industry and prospective learners with the information to more readily compare training providers and their offerings.