policy & reform
Reducing
Australia’ s regulatory burden
Government reporting requirements are costing universities millions. It’ s time for more flexible regulation. By Rod Jones
24 | May 2013
In April, education consultants PhillipsKPA released analysis on the mandatory reporting requirements of universities to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education( DIICCSRTE). The analysis had been commissioned by Universities Australia and DIICCSRTE.
The PhillipsKPA report found that universities must meet the requirements of a minimum of 18 different data collection processes a year costing the entire university sector 66,000 staff days and $ 26 million per annum.
This is a staggering financial and resourcing impost, but what is even more alarming is that this is just the requirements of the university sector to one regulator.
A range of other education providers which operate in the higher education field must also meet many of these requirements and providers who operate across many, or all education and training sectors, must meet the human and financial cost of an ever-widening expanse of regulatory requirements( ESOS), regulators( TEQSA and ASQA) and government departments.
Don’ t get me wrong, I’ m not against a wellregulated education sector. It guarantees the quality of our academic outputs, safeguards Australia’ s strong global reputation and most importantly, goes a long way to ensuring that students get the outcomes they are paying for.
It also supports the viability of our education sector and when things do occasionally go wrong, enables a relatively smooth transition for students and other stakeholders.
However, as indicated in TEQSA legislation, regulation should also be flexible, innovative, intelligent and efficient. It should have the ability to reward positive student outcomes and an evidenced commitment to academic quality with proportionate regulation.
Ideally, this would mean that providers who have a strong track record of meeting regulatory requirements be rewarded for such quality work with a lighter regulatory touch.
This could mean more time in between regulatory reviews, simplified provider re-registration or reduced fees.
An important element of proportionate regulation is the utilisation of a risk rating process.
The principle of reflecting risk is critical as it allows established providers with lower risk profiles to be acknowledged for their prudence and distinguished from higher risk providers – both enhancing the effectiveness of regulatory resources and providing opportunity for the latter to have initially higher levels of oversight and guidance, which may reduce should their risk factors diminish.
Essentially, a system to reward education and training organisations following best practice and regulatory guidelines while providing a tangible incentive to improve for new or questionable providers.
This brings us to probably the biggest opportunity for improvement of our regulatory system: efficiency.
This is an area where Australia falls short and, despite many recent reviews and changes to the education and training regulatory landscape, has failed to secure gains from improved efficiency.
A few examples of some low-hanging fruit include:
Provider registration
Currently providers can be required to undergo ASQA, TEQSA and ESOS registration and audit processes, all of which expire at different times but can require similar information and processes. A multi-sector provider has to provide similar information e. g. corporate governance, financial viability, and professional development of staff, during three separate assessment processes for registration. Recommendation: Under the newly-formed national regulatory bodies providers should be able to supply a single comprehensive submission