The 45-Hour Candidate with a Lapsed Certificate
Priya completed a 45-hour mediation training course 14 months ago and received a certificate of completion. She has since mediated six workplace disputes as a volunteer, but never applied for accreditation. She now applies for accreditation and submits: the 45-hour certificate, a log of six mediations with dates and case types, and a statutory declaration confirming no complaints. The accreditation standard requires 38 hours of approved training completed within the preceding 24 months, plus either three supervised mediations or a practical assessment. Priya's training was not delivered by an approved provider, and the six mediations were unsupervised. She asks whether her log can substitute for supervision, arguing that real cases are better than role-plays.
1. Assess Priya's application against the standard. Identify each requirement she meets, each she does not, and state the outcome you would recommend.
Read the worked answer
Training hours: 45 exceeds the 38-hour minimum, and the certificate is 14 months old, within the 24-month window. However, the provider is not approved, so the hours cannot be counted as approved training without a recognition-of-prior-learning assessment. Hours alone do not satisfy the standard.
Supervised practice or assessment: Priya has neither three supervised mediations nor a practical assessment. Unsupervised volunteer mediations do not meet the requirement, however valuable. Supervision exists to verify competence against a framework, not merely to accumulate case count.
Outcome: The application cannot be approved as lodged. Recommend: (1) refer the 45-hour course for an RPL equivalence review; (2) offer a practical assessment pathway, which she can attempt without further training if the RPL review succeeds; (3) if RPL fails, direct her to a short bridging module with an approved provider rather than repeating 38 hours.
Key reasoning: The log is evidence of experience, not evidence of assessed competence. Advise her that her six cases strengthen her assessment preparation but do not substitute for it.
2. Priya says she cannot afford to repeat training and asks for an exemption. Draft the substance of your response, including the grounds you may and may not consider.
Read the worked answer
May consider: documented equivalence of prior learning; a practical assessment pathway that avoids redundant training; fee relief or payment arrangements if the scheme offers them; any hardship policy published by the accrediting body.
May not consider: cost alone as a ground for waiving a competence requirement. Financial hardship does not establish that a candidate is competent, and granting an exemption on cost would be inconsistent with every other applicant.
Substance of the reply: Acknowledge the cost concern directly and explain the two cheaper routes: RPL review of the existing course, and the practical assessment in place of supervised cases. State plainly that a full exemption from the competence requirement is not available on financial grounds, and that this protects the credibility of her accreditation if granted. Give a decision timeline and the internal review route if she disagrees.
Reasoning: Procedural fairness requires that she understand the decision, the reasons, and how to challenge it. It does not require granting the request.