Consensus moderation is an approach to quality assurance where collaboration and discussion take place to agree mark allocation. This study explored sessional academics' perceptions and experiences of consensus moderation in higher education. Data from four focus groups were analysed using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis. The findings reveal four discursive constructions of consensus moderation: necessary for fairness and consistency; fraught and complicated; confusing and lacking consistency; and time demanding. Situated within the discourses of the 'vulnerable position of a sessional academic' and the 'paradox of quality assurance in a neoliberal university'. The findings highlight the need for academic development on moderation processes.