There is great confusion in the VET sector, especially now with all the changes that have been made to the BSB, ICT and HLTAID qualifications. We are constantly answering this question:
If an elective has been superseded in a qualification, but the old unit is still listed as the elective, which one am I supposed to use? Especially in the qualifications that have “the elective units can come from the list below or any other unit of competency at the same level…
So we went  straight to the experts to get clarification and this is what ASQA wrote back:

Dear XXX,
Thank you for your email.
The packaging rules for a training package qualification set out the overall requirements to achieve that qualification. The rules define the number of units required to achieve the qualification; this includes the core and named electives. In the case of CHC33015 - Certificate III in Individual Support - HLTAID003 - Provide first aid is a named elective unit.
Sometimes, a qualification or accredited course will specify a core or named elective unit or module that has been superseded, removed or deleted from a training package. In these cases, RTOs must continue to include the component/s as named in the qualification or course being delivered – as mandated by Clause 1.27 of the Standards for RTOs 2015.
Despite the fact that a named elective unit has been superseded, training providers are required to continue delivering HLTAID003 as named by the packaging rules, until such time as the qualification is updated.
However, should a student wish to undertake the unit as a standalone, then you must enrol them into the current unit (eg. HLTAID011) provided it is on your scope of registration.
I trust this information assists, and please do not hesitate to contact ASQA should you have any further enquiries.

 
This  means that you may have to deliver HLTAID003 to your students that are enrolled in a qualification like CHC33015 and HLTAID011 to students that want the latest updated first aid qualification. Confusing? We know. Makes sense? Not really. Better student outcomes? Seems like a long time since anyone worried about what is best for them.