policy & reform to one regulator only and have that registration recognised by other regulators.
Developing a national risk framework
TEQSA has developed and implemented a Regulatory Risk Framework, ASQA has developed and implemented a Risk Assessment Framework and VET FEE- HELP is considering developing a riskmanaged approach to HELP Scheme approvals.
Further risk frameworks are being developed for the Tuition Protection Scheme and Streamlined Visa Processing inclusion has a different migration risk focused framework. Clearly, a situation where several risk frameworks exist for different regulators will create significant duplication and regulatory overburden. Recommendation: That the government explore possible opportunities for departments and regulators to work together to create one single risk assessment framework.
Data collection
The PhillipsKPA report calls for a national university data centre managed by a single government department to administer all data collections from universities. Why not take this a step further and develop a single data centre for the entire education and training sector?
As an example, some education providers teaching vocational qualifications can be required to supply data to two separate regulatory bodies using three different pieces of software( Learner Satisfaction Survey – SMART software, Competency Completions – NCVER software, Queensland Certificate of
Education – SLIMS software). This occurs once per year for the first two, and by semester for the third.
Further to this, providers that are approved to offer students access to government assistance to fund tuition fees( e. g. FEE-HELP, VET FEE-HELP) are also required to participate in the sector-wide data collection by the HEIMS Unit within DEEWR( HEPCAT software). There are several submission points throughout the year.
However, this burden continues to grow. In 2012 TEQSA commenced its first data collection, by recognising the student enrolment data collected via HEIMS and adding even more elements, including staffing, student survey data and financial data, such as cash flows.
Providers risk being overwhelmed by multiple submission dates, numerous bespoke software packages and overlap between several regulators. Recommendation: Data collection is maybe our single greatest opportunity to reduce regulatory burden. By bringing in one single data collection point per year for a single national provider database we can realise efficiencies of scale and significantly reduce duplication of workload. This database would then be open to all regulators and government bodies to access when required.
In the emerging light of the latest higher education budgetary cuts, some commentators have called for a streamlining of the regulatory regime as a way of reducing demands on university budgets while improving efficiency.
I fully support this. It is not hard to see how an initial upfront investment in reviewing existing regulations and regulators could provide a number of opportunities for consolidation and efficiency.
Even without the motivation of budgetary cuts government, regulators, universities and all education providers should be pursuing the most efficient and effective regulatory system we can get.
If such a goal were shared more strongly across governments and the sector, we could work together to develop a worldclass regulatory system that supports innovation, rewards commitment to quality and incentives best practice.
Surely, this is a worthy goal for all of us. n
Rod Jones is the co-founder and CEO of Navitas, a private education provider.
www. campusreview. com. au May 2013 | 25