campusreview. com. au
VET & TAFE
Reform eases red tape – finally
VET deregulation measures the government has recently announced have been met with a sigh of relief in the sector and are long overdue.
By Rohan Cresp
Each tranche of reform for the VET sector in recent years – and there have been a few – has been accompanied by additional layers of red tape. The result has been the increasing bureaucratisation of the sector, which has served to stifle genuine competition based on innovation and diversity, therefore countering the aims of reform.
Much of this has been driven by a largely unfounded belief that if red tape is cut, quality will be as well.
There have been well-publicised examples of rorting and predatory practices in the VET sector as it has been opened up to competitive public funding – by public providers, as well as private. But as the government is proposing, a well-designed and well-managed regulatory system – based on appropriate risk-assessment practice – will ensure maintenance of quality.
And over time, as ASQA moves to a greater facilitating and educating role, overall quality of provision should be improved. Central to this outcome is the adoption of clear transparent standards, consistently applied. The current standards are sometimes opaque and / or ambiguous, so that their interpretation and application amongst providers and by ASQA is often inconsistent.
The standards need to be framed and applied in a way that ensures success, in the form of generally high-quality and vibrant provision, rather than the‘ gotcha’ way they are now, which seems set to maximise failure.
These reforms do not represent, as some commentators with an ingrained hostility towards private colleges have suggested, a relaxation of regulatory standards. What they do represent is a change in focus, targeting high-risk providers rather than all providers all the time.
They also reflect a change in official attitude, from an adversarial one that assumes the worst about private providers( and therefore the need for heavy-handed, stifling regulation) to a co-operative approach that recognises the overwhelming bulk of providers are committed to quality provision. Therefore, ASQA’ s primary focus should be facilitating and guiding this overwhelming bulk towards quality provision, rather than regulating them to within an inch of their lives.
You can liken this to measures around drink driving over the past 20 years, which have led to a significant reduction in its incidence and enhanced public safety in the form of a reduced road toll. This has been achieved not through a program to test all drivers over a cycle of time but by random breath testing, which creates the real possibility of detection. There are appropriate sanctions for transgressors – loss of licence and financial penalties – and extensive public information campaigns, particularly at times of high risk, such as the festive season and around major sporting events.
The government has indicated that it’ s also going to crack down on“ unscrupulous or misleading behaviour by brokers who act as an intermediary between students and training providers”. It’ s well past time that such action was taken. Whilst many, if not most, brokers and agents are reputable, rogue operators undermine the integrity of the VET system and have done so for 20 years.
I would suggest, however, that agents and brokers need to be directly registered and, therefore, have their activities directly regulated. Making colleges responsible for the activities of agents they contract won’ t work in the future because it doesn’ t work now. Current standards for VET provider registration already require that a college ensure its marketing and advertising of Australian Qualifications Framework and VET qualifications to prospective clients is ethical, accurate and consistent with its scope of registration. However, a college that takes action against an agent for unsatisfactory practices – by terminating a contract, for example – places itself, in a highly competitive market, at a competitive disadvantage. An unscrupulous broker simply moves on and operations of the college are disrupted, at least temporarily, as it puts in place new arrangements.
The standards should require colleges to deal only with registered brokers and insist that sub-standard behaviour be reported to the regulator. In this way, colleges can work with the regulator to ensure high recruitment standards and the removal of rogue brokers and agents from the sector.
That caveat aside, I very much welcome these measures, which will lead to a more responsive and flexible sector and more effective regulation of compliance. ■
Rohan Cresp is chief executive of iAscend Polytechnic.
25