NEWS campusreview. com. au
Richard Higgott
Details emerge from Murdoch
University’ s chancellor reveals investigation centres on conflicts of interest, bullying and more.
Murdoch University chancellor David Flanagan has revealed further detail regarding the investigations that have led to the suspension and recent resignation of Richard Higgott, the now former VC.
Higgott resigned from the university late last month following an investigation by Murdoch, which Flanagan revealed yesterday had been carried out at the request of the WA Corruption and Crime Commission( CCC).
A subsequent investigation, by the CCC itself, is ongoing. Murdoch provost professor Ann Capling – whose conduct is also understood to be under examination as part of the CCC investigation – has taken leave from the university.
In an interview with ABC radio in Perth on November 13, Flanagan repeatedly warned that lawyers from all sides would be listening.
“ In broad terms, one of the more serious matters [ we referred to the CCC ] included evidence of misleading and deceiving the Corruption and Crime Commission,” Flanagan said.“ We also identified evidence, which formed part of the report to the CCC, of significant conflicts of interest and a lack of proper process around key staff appointments.
“ We also found evidence of instances involving the destruction of documents under the State Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act – inappropriate stuff at the least. We also found some anomalies in relation to credit card use.
“ We also found evidence of excessive termination payments to senior staff and we also found and provided to the CCC significant evidence in relation to bullying at the university.”
Flanagan stressed that in discussing the serious issues the university had uncovered, he was not making any reference to or allegations against any current or former Murdoch University staff members. He said the Murdoch Senate had no choice but to refer its report to the CCC. At this stage, he added, the CCC had made no
ASQA, ACPET defend quality
judgements and nothing had been proven.
Flanagan also revealed that in December 2011 the CCC had made a request to the university’ s then-chancellor for Murdoch to carry out an internal investigation, and that he himself had received a similar request from the CCC in January this year.
He added that he was not aware of what data the CCC initially acted upon in requesting the investigations nor how this information had been procured.
Flanagan conceded recent events had been a public relations disaster but said Murdoch remained determined to appoint a VC with a mandate to work towards the university’ s strategy, which he said was focused on pursuing and delivering outstanding research, teaching and learning.
The chancellor said in light of public interest, he had gained consent from the CCC to find some“ middle ground” on which he could discuss the matters whilst protecting the rights of all involved. ■
Training providers’ regulation compliance results are causing a stir.
The Australian Skills Quality Authority and peak industry body the Australian Council of Private Education and Training have defended both the quality of vocational training and its regulation following the release of data revealing that just 1 in 5 providers has passed initial-stage standards auditing.
The ASQA 2013 – 14 annual report revealed that just 20 per cent of providers were fully compliant with its standards, with all others audited having been found to be non-compliant in at least one area.
However, the report went on to say 77 per cent of initially non-compliant providers achieved accreditation by resolving their issues within the allowed 20-day rectification period.
In its report, ASQA stated that 74 providers had their registration either cancelled( 25) or suspended( 49) as a result of non-compliance issues during the reporting period.
ASQA chief executive Chris Robinson said that whilst there was some concern, the 20 per cent rate of full compliance following the first stage of the audit process was not an accurate reflection of the overall quality in the sector.
“ It is misleading to say that most training providers are providing poor quality products because of that,” Robinson said.“ In our first three years acting as the national regulator, we have refused registration of just over 6 per cent of RTOs who have applied for re-registration, a process they have to do every five years.
“ So there is a small proportion of them out there that are of serious concern and we are progressively taking action against those RTOs.”
ACPET chief executive Rod Camm said that whilst“ at first glance” the initial non-compliance figures seemed worrying, the report overall was a clear indication that federal regulatory measures were working, with most non-compliance issues quickly resolved.
“ It is not a surprising result; what you want is your auditing to have veracity and to identify problems,” Camm said.“ What is pleasing is that close to 80 per cent of providers then fix it up.”
Camm added that some media reports regarding the compliance figures were disappointing and had the potential to unfairly lower public confidence in the sector. However, he added that with 23 per cent of initially non-compliant providers still not meeting ASQA standards following failed audits, the industry itself had a responsibility to weed out poor quality in the sector.
Early in November, ACPET, along with a list of training organisations and bodies, announced plans for a new code of conduct for the sector, along with guidelines that would encourage and reward educational excellence.
Camm said members had grown increasingly frustrated with poor-quality providers and third-party brokers, adding that he planned to release draft versions of the code and guidelines by the end of the year. ■
4