VET & TAFE of organisations purporting to be brokers for an RTO, but in fact having no business relationship with the RTO, could undermine confidence in the training system, both for potential students and the providers of training”. Again, this is an understatement. If this particular ASQA finding is understood by potential students and their representatives, such as international pupils and agents, confidence in the Australian training system will be damaged deeply, right now.
Limited research methods The ASQA report is not only characterised by bland, bureaucratic language, it also lacks colour and insights because of the limited research methods. Only one source of evidence was used as the main basis of the report: the“ desk research” of the 480 websites. Surprisingly, no one was interviewed and no case studies prepared.
A second source of evidence is alluded to but not shared with readers: the specifics of 164 complaints related to marketing, as recorded by ASQA in the two years to June 2013. The reader is left wondering why anonymous quotations were not included, particularly from students who have been stung by rogue practices. Why not include some break-out boxes quoting directly from some complainants? Perhaps such quotations would have been too confronting for the many government officials asked for their advice about the project. Hopefully the details of such customer complaints will come to light following a freedom of information request.
The most obvious source of evidence missing from the report, however, is a selection of some snapshots or case studies of organisations that have transgressed the relevant laws and / or standards. A combination of the existing analysis of 480 websites and some illustrative case studies would have provided a more compelling and definitive report. Why were some code-named case studies not prepared?
ASQA deserves acknowledgement for consulting with industry training councils about the nature of the problems in the sector related to advertising and marketing. However, the passionate comments of the councils, as summarised in an appendix, are not reflected in the body of the report, although the recommendations do pick up most of their concerns. A profile of inappropriate marketing practices by RTOs and‘ brokers’ in at least one industry could have enriched the report.
Why did this mess happen? Another major omission in the ASQA review is a situation analysis, which inevitably would have generated the awkward but crucial question of why nearly half the sample of RTOs investigated used misleading marketing without regulators reining them in. One could expect the answers to be uncomfortable for all governments, based on the research I undertook for 22 articles I prepared for Campus Review in the 12 months from October 2011.
That set of articles found that so-called‘ VET reform’, as endorsed by COAG and championed first by Victoria, was based on three pillars, each of which were unsteady over that period:
• market design: the proposition that government officials can designed and implement an effective market for VET while still meeting industry skill needs
• student entitlement: providing eligible students with access to a subsidised training place of their choice, with an approved training organisation
• contestable funding: opening up to tender more and more of the public funds for training, so that TAFE and private registered training providers compete for those public funds.
The articles showed that over the year from October 2011, VET reform based on these ideological pillars“ remained elusive, as VET reform requires some foundational elements not yet in place, including well-informed consumers, well-resourced regulators and barriers to profiteering providers”.
Four of the 22 articles involved interviews with University of Sydney honorary senior research fellow and political economist Dr Philip Toner, who noted that“ VET supplies a very unusual product in terms of objective assessment of what’ s being bought”, making it difficult for many consumers to know what they are buying or what is its level of quality. Not like buying a potato.
In his own research, Toner had examined in detail some industries where dishonest service providers had abused such distinguishing features of the VET product; for instance, in the training associated with the licensing of building inspectors. This was the subject of an inquiry by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in NSW and the training providers were found to be“ rorting the system, either providing no training whatsoever or just minimal training”.
Toner was concerned by“ one of the developments seen as a positive by the Victorian government, the doubling in the number of private providers since 2008. Does the customer, let alone the government, have any idea what quality of VET product is provided by every one of these providers?” Toner asks.
Put bluntly, the set of articles from October 2011-October 2012, and articles by other independent researchers in the VET sector, show that the proliferation of unscrupulous RTOs using misleading marketing was predictable and avoidable because“ VET reform” was ill-thought out, rushed and botched. Regrettably, ASQA’ s report also omits reference to this well-documented context of policy failure.
Recommendations at risk Instead of acknowledging the contribution poor public policy and inadequate regulation made to the fiasco of RTOs using deceptive marketing practices, ASQA’ s report targets the shonky providers as the main cause of the problem. This enables ASQA to provide a set of recommendations that focus on the villains( dodgy RTOs) and the proposed solution( improved standards and regulation).
Even so, whilst the report avoids addressing the inconvenient contribution of poor policy to the mess, its recommendations are worthy of broad support. On balance, ASQA deserves plaudits for capturing a long list of issues, such as the contentious issue of clarifying“ the volume of learning” for different AQF qualifications. ASQA also suggests that the National Skills Standards Council convene a group to address these urgent issues. Unfortunately, confidence in the NSSC being able to move quickly was dented by the slow process it has used in recent years for implementing improved national standards.
Unless the NSSC moves quickly, more dodgy providers will use misleading information and more consumers will be exploited. Moreover, the longer it takes for improved standards related to consumer protection to be developed and implemented effectively, the more harshly history will judge the policymakers and others who created the conditions for disreputable RTOs’ abuse of VET consumers.
View the report at asqa. gov. au
Dr John Mitchell is a VET researcher and analyst. Go to jma. com. au campusreview. com. au | 23