It’s a question we’ve been fielding quite a bit lately, particularly following its appearance in some audit and submission discussions, including within ADC requirements.
And it’s a fair question to ask.
When something shows up in a submission checklist or gets raised by an auditor, it’s natural to assume a new requirement has been introduced. So, we went directly to ASQA to get clarity, and the answer is simpler than you might expect.
Why this is coming up
The Australian Government has established the Antisemitism Education Taskforce to support the education system in preventing and responding to antisemitism. ASQA is a member of that Taskforce.
What followed was a ripple of enquiries across the sector, with RTOs understandably wondering whether a specific compliance action was now required of them.
What we now know
ASQA has confirmed that involvement in the Taskforce has not led to any change in regulatory practice. There is no new standalone requirement. No new standard. No new document you are expected to produce.
What ASQA is doing is encouraging providers to pause and genuinely reflect on whether their existing practices are actually addressing risks like antisemitism, because the obligation to do so has always been there.
What the Standards already require
Under the 2025 Standards, RTOs are required to ensure students can access learning in an environment that is safe, inclusive, and free from racism and discrimination.
This sits within Standard 2.5 (Diversity and Inclusion) and Standard 2.6 (Wellbeing) and is reinforced by Clause 20 of the Compliance Requirements, which requires providers to comply with all applicable anti-discrimination and human rights legislation.
Together, these obligations form part of the broader self-assurance approach under Standard 4.4, where providers are expected to not only have these settings in place, but continuously monitor, review, and improve how they operate over time, rather than simply existing on paper.
None of this is new. What has changed is the lens ASQA is asking providers to look through.
What this looks like in practice
The reflection ASQA is encouraging is practical and straightforward. Rather than creating a standalone document, the more meaningful approach is to look at what you already have and ask some honest questions.
- Do your Diversity and Inclusion or Code of Conduct policies explicitly address zero tolerance for all forms of discrimination, including antisemitism?
- Do your staff actually understand what antisemitism is and how it might present in a training environment?
- Would staff recognise if a student was being vilified?
- Do students have a clear, accessible way to raise concerns or make a complaint?
These are the questions worth sitting with. If the answer to any of those is uncertain, that is where your attention should go. A policy update, a targeted staff briefing, or a review of your complaints process will do far more to demonstrate genuine compliance than a standalone statement that isn’t embedded in anything. Because a policy that speaks to discrimination in principle but gives staff nothing concrete to work with is not really doing its job. This is also where providers move from having a framework in place to being able to demonstrate that it is effective.
What this means for your RTO
You do not need to create a standalone Antisemitism Statement.
But you do need to be confident that your current framework genuinely addresses this risk. For most RTOs, the better path is strengthening what already exists, making sure policies are explicit, staff are informed, and students have a clear way to raise concerns or make a complaint.
It is also worth keeping in mind that what regulators are likely to look for is evidence of implementation. The focus is less on whether a statement exists, and more on whether you can evidence how your organisation understands, identifies, and responds to these risks in practice. This may include staff awareness and training, how incidents are recorded and managed, and how learners are supported to raise concerns.
If you want to include a short statement, that is perfectly reasonable. Just position it as part of your broader commitment to a safe and respectful learning environment, rather than as a response to a new compliance requirement.
Because it isn’t one.
If you would like to discuss this with us further, reach out!