We have evaluated how fair and transparent the internal workings of Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) is. Where can an RTO go to complain and seek justice? How effective are the “external avenues”? 

ASQA’s auditors on the day of the audit 

Please note: ASQA has engaged some very professional officers and auditors as well and we highly respect their integrity, values and ethics. No one should have any issues with auditors if they are compliant with the regulatory standards and expectations, legislative and regulatory requirements and expectations from their job-role and status.    

However, some auditors, high on the dose of power of being an auditor come across as unchallengeable even when they do not have industry experience and audit outside their scope.. Their approach to the audit has been to treat the RTO as if a crime has been committed and view them as guilty until proven innocent. There are records of comments being passed that many would view as unprofessional, offensive and derogatory. 

One TAFE person mentioned a particular incidence where an auditor in his 30’s had to repeat his questions twice to an industry trainer in his late 70’s (with 40 years of experience in the VET Industry). The auditor got annoyed that the trainer did not hear him or understood the question the first time around and said ” I’m not sure which planet he is from”. 

Why has an environment been created and even promoted for auditors and officers to behave and act in this way? Can the culture be changed? 

If the auditors are unapproachable and unaccountable, the RTO does not get the opportunity to lodge an informal complaint and resolve any concerns during the audit. 

ASQA’s Governance, Policy and Quality team

Assume that you have a genuine complaint that has not been resolved informally during the audit and you now want to lodge a formal complaint. 

ASQA’s Governance, Policy and Quality department  is responsible for the investigation. 

You assume that this department, as it is mentioned on ASQA’s website operates independently from ASQA’s operational units and they will genuinely look into your complaint, investigate and provide you with a detailed response of the outcome. After all it is in everyone’s interest to continuously improve practice.

Many RTOs who have contacted us have, however, told us that their experience is that this department will try their very best to bury the evidence, take in excess of 90 days to finalise a complaint and when it gets back to you, it supports ASQA’s decision. 

In our investigation, we have come across a number of investigations conducted by the Governance, Policy and Quality team, where credible evidence has been given to them to investigate.  They simply refused to acknowledge this evidence or just relied on the version given of the person or persons who the complaint is against. 

We are interested to know how many times ASQA’s Governance, Policy and Quality team has genuinely investigated a matter and what the outcomes of the investigations have been. 

The information that we have received is that if RTOs get told that everything was done correctly with regards to their case and if they are not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation they can go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. 

Right of access under the FOI Act

You then apply to get information through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to understand what is going on and why a regulatory body is involved in this type of practice. 

The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) seeks to give the Australian community access to information held by the Australian Government. ASQA manages requests for information in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s93A of the FOI Act.

Guess, who has the power to release Freedom of Information (FOI) information to you? 

Gold coins if you guessed it correctly!  Yes, ASQA’s so-called independently operating Governance, Policy and Quality unit. 

If they were not able to investigate your complaint appropriately and correctly, then what information would they release under freedom of information act?  

You guessed it right, you are likely to get nothing. 

Their best route is sec 24AA, that states  “the request of releasing the information would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations”.  

This is the common reason most government agencies refuse FOI applications.

24AA When does a practical refusal reason exists?

The Act contains two practical refusal reasons. The first is that processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations (s.24AA(1)(a)). An agency may also refuse an FOI request if the agency is satisfied that the request does not provide such information concerning the document as is reasonably necessary to enable a responsible officer of the agency to identify the document in question (s.24AA(1)(b)). 

Even if they release any information to you, it will not be useful to you. 

You then request a Freedom of Information dispute resolution to obtain the documents from ASQA through the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and you are advised that you must wait a year for an officer to become available and conduct the review.

Commonwealth Ombudsman 

ASQA’s Governance, Policy and Quality team provides you an option to lodge your complaint to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. 

You lodge a formal complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman but you are advised that they cannot investigate your contentions because it would only have been possible at the immediate time or alternatively they can not think of any better outcome in your particular matter. 

Ministerial intervention 

Ministers are helpless and incapacitated as ASQA has been set-up as an independent statutory regulatory body. 

You realise this when you contact them and ask for help and  you will get one of these outcomes: 

• No reply as they do not understand much of vocational education and training sector, 

• ASQA is doing the right thing and pursuing some kind of investigation on your RTO 

• They understand and know how rogue the regulatory body is but they tell you they can not do anything until they change the legislation and regulatory standards 

 

You may apply for a Ministerial intervention but in most cases, Ministers simply takes advice from the Regulator itself and of course, you receive a one-pager stating ASQA did nothing wrong. 

Case closed. 

What do you do then and what help is available? 

Do not lose hope! Read our article Who is there to support training organisations and what RTO representatives should know.

The VET industry has some serious concerns regarding the competency of ASQA’s officers and auditors. We would like to look into this with some facts, records and figures. 

Qualified auditors with Senior VET Experience – are they qualified enough?

Unfortunately, the regulatory body has moved away from recruiting officers with a background in the education sector or even relevant industry experience to be able to effectively audit training organisations. Now questions have to be asked with regards to how auditors are selected and engaged by ASQA. 

ASQA hires Lead Regulatory Officers to lead and supervise audit teams; make recommendations about RTOs compliance; make recommendations for the Commissioners but, as shown below, successful applicants are not required to hold the legislated mandatory qualifications.

If applicants do not hold the legislated qualifications at the time of engagement what process does ASQA use to put their regulatory staff through their qualifications? 

According to AQF guidelines, Certificate IV and Diploma require a minimum of 1.5 years/1800 hours, up to 4 years in total/4800 hours to complete. So, does that mean that ASQA staff receive 4 years of training before they are in a position to recommend the shut down of Australian companies? Who issues the qualifications? Who are the RTOs?

When Mark Paterson, AO, commented on the first-ever strategic review as Chief Commissioner, “a review of issues relating to unduly short training”, did anyone review ASQA’s own recruitment practices or compliance with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and other relevant guidelines? 

Auditor interpretation and decision consistency: Forget nationally consistent decisions, two auditors cannot reach the same decisions  

No two auditors think or act the same way. We were shocked to see how inconsistent their findings and views are on the same clause and regulatory standard. If these auditors have such a difference in opinions then how can a regulatory body comply to its core values and source or even its existence? 

ASQA was established on the following grounds under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011: 

The Section 2A Objects of the Act: 

The objects of this Act are:

(a)  to provide for national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET); and

(b)  to regulate VET using:

(i)  a standards‑based quality framework; and

(ii)  risk assessments, where appropriate; and

(c)  to protect and enhance:

(i)  quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and

(ii)  Australia’s reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and

(d)  to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population; and

(e)  to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and

(f)  to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET.

A common misconception in the industry is that ASQA exists to protect and promote quality in the sector.  However, the act clearly outlines, it exists to protect and enhance quality, it exists to provide national consistency in its decisions, it exists to encourage and promote a VET system that provides quality, flexibility and innovation. 

We believe all decisions where two auditors have not reached the same conclusion or outcome should be considered as “null and void”. These decisions should not have any legal or ethical standing. 

Not having nationally consistent decisions – Are not these clear signs of the incompetence of the regulatory officers and auditors? 

If two auditors cannot agree on something and provide completely contradictory statements and judgements, then how can this current regulatory body provide for national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET); and regulate VET using: (i) a standards‑based quality framework; and (ii) risk assessments, where appropriate; and (c) to protect and enhance: (i) quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and (ii) Australia’s reputation for VET nationally and internationally; and (d) to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population; and (e)  to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET; and (f) to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET. 

How many of these requirements is ASQA currently meeting? 

Is ASQA able to provide national consistency in the regulation of vocational education and training (VET) even after eight years of registration? 

Is ASQA able to regulate VET using a standards‑based quality framework; and risk assessments? 

Is ASQA able to protect and enhance (i) quality, flexibility and innovation in VET; and (ii)  Australia’s reputation for VET nationally and internationally?

Is ASQA able to provide a regulatory framework that encourages and promotes a VET system that is appropriate to meet Australia’s social and economic needs for a highly educated and skilled population?

Is ASQA able to protect students undertaking, or proposing to undertake, Australian VET by ensuring the provision of quality VET? 

Is ASQA able to facilitate access to accurate information relating to the quality of VET?  

Please note this situation becomes immensely interesting even when the same ASQA auditor gives two different judgements on the same resources within a period of a few months. 

Errors of gigantic portions 

• Is ASQA allowing, encouraging and promoting its officers to make errors in so called “good faith”? 

• Where are the performance reviews of the officers working in the vocational education and training sector? 

• Why has no disciplinary action been taken with officers misusing their position and power? 

 

ASQA Audits  

1. What kind of rigour is used to review the documents and information provided to ASQA during the audits? Who checks the documents during a desk audit? Are these auditors or ASQA officers making decisions? What checklists or criteria do they check the information against?

2. There was a case where ASQA officers could not read the name of the RTO staff members in the ASQA auditor’s report and internal documents and refused an RTO application. What actions have been taken to ensure this doesn’t happen again? 

3. How can ASQA review the documents of an organisation, confirm that they are compliant in writing, approve them for providing training and assessment and then six months later (after the initial audit) shut them down or use sanctions to disadvantage the RTO? 

 

If the training package and the qualifications have not changed and the training and assessment material was previously audited and deemed compliant, how can this be possible? Was the initial assessment of the RTOs training and assessment material not properly conducted? If an ASQA representative makes a mistake at the initial audit then who should be held responsible? If ASQA made mistakes at the following audits then where is the consistency in the system? 

ASQA Audit Practices 

1. Why does ASQA not allow audits to be recorded? If audits are conducted in a compliant professional manner then why is this a problem? 

2. Why are comments outside of the scope of audit allowed to be made during audits?

3. How is ASQA ensuring procedural fairness and transparency in its decisions?

4. What risk management approach is ASQA using? After eight years, it appears that the core issues of the VET training system have still not been resolved. 

5. Why there is no consistency, parameters and timelines in terms of when training representatives are audited and provided with audit reports? 

6. Are ASQA audit practices auditor-centred, rather than system-centred? Are auditors auditing outside the regulatory framework and guidelines? 

 

Conflict of Interest 

1. How can an auditor, representing a Government body not a private regulatory body, be allowed to work in an organisation they have been auditing after only a six-month gap? 

2. How can consultants be allowed to become auditors and then again go back to work as consultants in the sector and then again be engaged by ASQA? 

3. If there are “fit and proper person requirements” for training representatives and high managerial agents, what requirements are applicable for ASQA officers and auditors? A number of these officers have been part of training organisations, either as consultants or employees, that have been closed down and had critical non-compliances and unfavourable compliance outcomes. 

4. Why are government officers allowed to provide consultancy services to RTOs? When and where do we draw the line for a conflict of interest?

 

Audit Reporting 

1.  Why are all audit reports not available on ASQA’s website? 

The financial viability risk assessment (FVRA) tool has been changed again by ASQA to make it more user friendly. The latest change was implemented on October 4, 2019. The changes have been made to make the FVRA tool more user-friendly and in cases where it is incomplete, provide additional guidance to identify items missing.

The following media release has been published by the Australian Skills Quality Authority: 

In response to user feedback, ASQA has made a number of revisions to the Financial Viability Risk Assessment (FVRA) tool to make it more user friendly.

These changes will assist users in ensuring the tool is complete before they provide it to ASQA and, in cases where it is incomplete, provide additional guidance to identify items missing.

If you are required to complete and submit the FVRA tool to ASQA, you should ensure you are using the latest version and that you have provided all required attachments – these are detailed on the Provider Details tab of the FVRA tool.

ASQA may require you to demonstrate financial viability by submitting the FVRA tool at any time, or when you:

• apply to become an RTO and/or a CRICOS provider

• apply to change the scope of your RTO registration in the first 12 months of registration

• change 50% or more of the ownership of your RTO within a 12 month period

 

You can read more information about this by clicking the following link;

https://www.asqa.gov.au/news-publications/news/changes-financial-viability-risk-assessment-fvra-tool 

ASQA published the following media release on October 4 2019: 

ASQA is aware that unfortunately, there are unqualified organisations issuing fake certificates in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector.

Whether you are a student signing up for a course in VET or a business seeking a training provider for your employees, make sure to verify the provider’s current registration status on training.gov.au.

Training.gov.au is the National Register of VET in Australia. It is the authoritative source of Nationally Recognised Training and maintains a current list of registered training organisations (RTOs) who have the approved scope to deliver Nationally Recognized Training, as required by national and jurisdictional legislation within Australia.

Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) published the following news on October 4 2019: 

As part of a collaboration between the Australian Department of Education, ASQA and the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), ASQA is now able to upload the academic results from closed RTOs to students’ Unique Student Identifier (USI) transcripts outside the regular data submission windows. This allows USI transcripts to be updated for students from closed RTOs in a timely fashion.

Close to 66,000 records that were not available from closed registered training organisations (RTOs) are now reflected on the USI transcript.

The USI allows students to access their training records from different training providers, in different states, and across different years – in the one transcript online.

For more Information, please visit

https://www.asqa.gov.au/news-publications/news/updates-usi-transcript-closed-registered-training-organisations 

https://www.asqa.gov.au/news-publications/news/updating-your-usi-transcript-if-your-rto-has-closed 

https://www.asqa.gov.au/students/applying-copy-student-records

ASQA and TEQSA are required by the Australian Government to transition from partial cost recovery to full cost recovery by 2020-21 making charging activities more consistent with the  other areas of Government and Australian Government Charging Framework. 

Currently, neither regulator recovers the full cost of their regulatory operation or the full cost of legislative activities. The regulators recover only the costs of regulatory activity for outputs that are initiated/requested by the providers and not costs associated with compliance, monitoring, enforcement, and investigations. Under these updated provisions that will change.

Background: 

In December 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to ASQA’s establishment as a cost recovery agency, and announced that ASQA would over a period of years move from partial to full cost recovery. On 1 July 2011 ASQA was established by the enactment of the NVR Act and supplementary legislation. In the 2014–15 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements, the Australian Government confirmed ASQA’s continued operation as a partial cost recovery entity.

The Australian Government Budget 2018–19 announced that ASQA will transition from partial cost recovery to full cost recovery by 2020–21.

During the transition to full cost recovery by 2020–21, ASQA will engage in public consultation with all VET sector stakeholders before any changes are made to ASQA’S fees and charges. ASQA will detail any proposed changes, the rationale and anticipated cost-recovery outcomes of the proposal, and provide all stakeholders with the opportunity to provide input and feedback. ASQA will allow adequate time not only for this consultation to take place, but also for reconsideration and revision of the proposal based on stakeholder input received during the consultation.

Public consultation on ASQA’s fees and charges for 2018–19 took place from 1 August to 3 September 2017. For more information on this consultation process, see section 5—Stakeholder engagement.

ASQA recovers costs by imposing fees and charges on providers for various tasks ASQA performs as part of regulating the VET sector. ASQA receives budget appropriations from the Australian Government, and cost recovery revenue is returned to the Australian Government’s Consolidated Revenue Fund to offset budget funding

ASQA’s collection of fees and charges 

ASQA’s authority to impose fees is provided in section 232 of the NVR Act.

ASQA’s authority to impose charges is provided in sections 7–12 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Act 2012 (the Charges Act).

ASQA mainly imposes and collects fees and charges on three key groups:

• Registered Training Organisations (RTOs)

• Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) providers—including those that deliver English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS)

• VET accredited course owners.

 

ASQA’s business activities 

ASQA is required to support all its business activities and operations under the full recovery model. The business activities and operations include: 

 ASQA’s partial cost recovery model 

ASQA currently receives an annual budget appropriation for operating and capital activities from the Australian Government and returns cost recovery revenue to the Consolidated Revenue Fund to offset their budget funding. The cost of some of ASQA’s regulatory activity is partially recovered through fees and charges. Some of ASQA’s regulatory activity is funded by ASQA’s annual budget appropriation.  

Implications: 

Let’s now look into how the proposed changes are going to affect your training organisation or its operations. 

A revised fees and charges model came into effect from 6 July 2018: 

• reduce many fees and charges from the current rates, reflecting efficiencies realised through ASQA’s upgraded business systems and improved processes

• provide cost reductions for providers that demonstrate high levels of compliance with their regulatory obligations , including the requirements of the VET Quality Framework

• only impose assessment fees in certain cases (for example, when a registered training organisation seeks to renew its registration, charges for the additional cost of assessment will only be imposed on those providers that require an audit)

• align with ASQA’s risk-based approach to regulation, so that providers that require a greater level of regulatory attention and oversight are more likely to pay higher costs for their regulation.

 

Changes to fees and charges for RTOs include:

• decreases in initial, renewal and change-of-scope application lodgement fees

• a shift from assessments of all applications (with costs shared across all providers) to an approach where costs are charged at the point of audit (meaning that for renewal and change- of-scope applications, charges for the additional cost of assessment will only be imposed on those providers that require an audit).

 

CRICOS changes include:

• decreases in initial and renewal application lodgement fees

• a decrease in the change-of-scope application fee. Course accreditation changes include:

• replacing the single application fee with a lodgement fee and an assessment fee (so that ASQA’s initial costs are recovered, and applicants whose applications are of insufficient quality to proceed to the assessment stage are only charged for the cost of lodgement)

• replacing the single amendment fee with different fees for ‘minor’ and ‘major’ amendments, which results in a lower cost to providers who make minor amendments.

 

Annual registration changes include:

• replacing the annual fee with an annual registration charge to ensure consistency with the Australian Government Charging Framework (noting the amount and structure is unchanged, and that there will be no financial impact on providers, course owners or ASQA due to this change).

 

Averaging the application lodgement fee for initial, assessment, renewal and change-of-scope provides simplicity, consistency and efficiency.

Does this mean all providers will pay more? 

ASQA‘s answer to this question is “not necessarily”.  The proposed fees and charges represent a full review of associated costs, taking into account the impact of streamlining of some processes and all relevant data. 

Calculation of fees and charges takes into account the principle that the cost of dealing with non-compliance should not be borne by compliant providers. 

ASQA fees and charges are designed to limit financial impact on providers and course owners while ensuring the quality of providers entering and operating in the industry.

ASQA’s fees and charges for 2018–19 are designed to support ASQA’s risk-based regulatory approach, incentivise provider compliance, and minimise the administrative and financial burden on providers that provide quality outcomes to students.

The fees and charges apply to all ASQA-regulated providers and course owners.

What is most important for you to understand 

Stay compliant. The cost of non-compliance is a lot more than you spending time and energy to stay compliant with the operations of your organisation. Organise an independent audit from experienced compliance consultants to look into your operations, processes and practices. Improve where you can, fill gaps and make sure you are following all regulatory guidelines and legislative instruments at all times. 

There is always help available for your RTO.  

If you unsure or not confident with your understanding of the regulatory processes, ask for help!  Having professional advice can be an invaluable resource to your RTO. Utilising the experiences of a seasoned professional who is dealing with the regulatory bodies can give you access to a wealth of information for your RTO.  Having the right professional help can actually save you money, time and stress. Contact us at www.caqa.com.au to see how we can help your RTO.

What could be other implications? 

1. How will compliant and non-compliant RTOs be identified in the current unclear and completely ambiguous regulatory environment and system? 

2. How will transparency be maintained through the Cost-Recovery Implementation Statements (CRIS)? 

 

Most importantly, 

1. How will the Government and regulatory bodies ensure that compliant RTOs are not penalised for the actions of non-compliant RTOs?  

2. Will there be higher course fees than the already expensive course fees to Australian and International students? 

 

Reference: 

Fees and charges | Australian Skills Quality Authority. (2019). Retrieved 28 September 2019, from https://www.asqa.gov.au/about/fees-and-charges

Pic: Courtesy @edissuesaus 

Note: The pic includes the famous saying of Ex-Chief Commissioner, Australian Skills Quality Authority in the Independent Tertiary Education Conference, Itec 2019 that held on 21-23 August 2019 at Marriott Surfers Paradise, for more information, please refer https://itec19.com.au/program/program/  

Yes, you heard it right. The chief commissioner of Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) has resigned from his post after Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash, Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business and the Hon Steve Irons MP, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education, Training and Apprenticeships and all other Federal, State and Territory skills ministers decided to work together through COAG on a national approach to implement the key recommendations of the Braithwaite and Joyce Reviews.  

The industry wholeheartedly has welcomed the change. 

We are sharing some of the posts from social media: 

“The reforms set out by Michaelia Cash for the #VocationalEducation and #Training system will strengthen the work of independent providers and ensure quality outcomes for students. The change at ASQA is an important step in this journey.” 

“Awesome news but long overdue” 

“A change is finally coming to the RTO landscape. The question we must ask ourselves is will it be to our benefit or will it be worse than what we have now? Will ASQA finally treat us in the manner they should with proper respect and will they clean it up and remove the old guard and bring in better management?” 

“Now there is a parliamentary heat on it – he’s getting out of the kitchen cause its getting hot”

“We can’t make one person responsible for the whole organisation’s failure. More should go, it’s their culture not the system” 

“ASQA should be abolished. I have never come across such a corrupt Government body in my over 22 years in the public and private sector.”

“He’s never gonna dance again, guilty feet have got no rhythm..”

“ASQA is going on a brand new TV show called “I’m a regulator, get me out of here!”?” 

“The whole culture is toxic.  That is why they have a high staff turnover.”

“The big news in several areas, hopefully, ASQA to move towards an ‘Educative direction’ would be a huge advancement in the VET sector, obviously, Mark Patterson is not in agreement with the two VET reports and any new changes on the table, education and regulation go hand in hand for quality, continuous improvement and compliance…I hope this new era will be a win-win for all RTOs”

“It was much needed. I believe all commissioners, General Manager and other managers must go.” 

“It’s time for ASQA to go! 

Whilst I am a great proponent of a national regulator, ASQA are a dictatorship which must be stopped! NARA were a great system

And even the state based system were better (really did I say that) QLd DET with all its faults performed 1000% better than ASQA 

Also ASQA charge like wounded bulls ( I used to pay $800 a year to DET QLD now it’s $8000 a year to ASQA )

Someone has to support the highly paid cohort at the dictatorship”

“Having just gone through the fiasco of an AAT matter against ASQA (and winning!) I can endorse all of your comments and would go further. ASQA has almost destroyed educational training innovation in Australia and set us behind the rest of the Western World by 20 years. My RTO and a previous one have been involved since regulated training started here. It is a shambles and a disgrace. It is so bad now that since I have now started my own ASQA legal consultancy business (as a lawyer with lengthy RTO experience) for those wishing to battle ASQA.” 

“ I’ve been a security trainer for the past ten years on and off seasonally when I want to teach. I’ve never seen such a backward system and training information that is outdated and non effective in today’s security industry. Some of the information, I have not seen since the 80’s. The material is not current and made up of people that falsely believe they are qualified security people, but in reality from another planet.”

“It’s time for ASQA to go! 

Whilst I am a great proponent of a national regulator, ASQA are a dictatorship which must be stopped! NARA were a great system

And even the state based system were better (really did I say that) QLd DET with all its faults performed 1000% better than ASQA 

Also ASQA charge like wounded bulls ( I used to pay $800 a year to DET QLD now it’s $8000 a year to ASQA )

Someone has to support the highly paid cohort at the dictatorship”

“That’s wrong on so many levels. It’s not a behaviour expected from a regulator. “ 

Moving from unclear guidelines and protocols and transitioning to a quality framework 

When the audit guidelines are completely subjective and not objective, auditors are free to twist them, turn them and use them any way they want to. This is one of the many problems in the VET sector. 

There is a very famous story, where one (currently employed) auditor made another auditor’s RTO  non-compliant. Auditors are hired to follow the guidelines. If they are trained to find and provide quality audit findings and outcomes, how come there are such a difference in judgements that one cannot keep their organisation compliant and the other cannot properly follow the compliance guidelines.  Was this a case of an auditor not able to maintain a complaint RTO or an auditor not being able to audit correctly? How is the regulatory body expecting people working in the sector with no audit backgrounds to meet compliance and regulatory requirements?

No two auditors reach the same conclusions. As part of our resource writing arm, CAQA Resources, we have involved a number of auditors and our experience is that the feedback from them is most ot the time contradictory.  It takes substantial time and effort, therefore, to produce a final copy of a document that meets the requirements of most auditors and industry experts and where they reluctantly sign off to say it is compliant.

All audit guidelines should be written in a very clear, easy to understand and implement, and audit format. There should be no room for subjective measurements to determine the effectiveness and suitability of practices, policies and procedures.  The subjective language of the regulatory standards is the biggest threat to a nationally consistent audit approach and quality management system (QMS) auditors. The regulatory framework should be based on practical experiences and objectives. It should, in reality, be focused on the three main domains: 

1. “Industry-centred” i.e. according to the needs and requirements of the industry to ensure Australia leads the vocational education and training throughout the world. 

2.  “Student-centric” i.e. the student should be the focus from pre-enrolment to course completion. 

3. “Quality-based” i.e. based upon continuously improving the standards of education, student-support, trainers, facilities, resources, equipment, infrastructure 

All audits should be recorded 

The stories and rumours that are circulating in the industry are not good for the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and for the training and education industry. These stories and rumours can only stop if all audits are being recorded.

Who audits the auditors? 

We have raised our concerns around this in a separate topic in this newsletter. 

What the industry wants to see 

We would like to see a regulatory body that: 

1. Provides training and education: The regulatory body MUST provide very clear expectations and guidelines regarding what is expected from the training organisations for each and every standard and clause. No ambiguity, no double meaning, using simple English language structure and templates. 

2. Promotes Australian Education Worldwide: We need a regulator that helps training organisations promote the Australian brand and values worldwide. 

3. Encourages technology, innovation and education through different delivery modes: Address the white elephant in the room. Regulatory practices should not be a barrier to using or encouraging technology and stop us from reaching out to the learners. This practice should be abolished immediately and the focus should be on how we can be world leaders in terms of the development of training packages and practices that promote technology, innovation and education through a variety of delivery modes. 

4. Encourages continuous improvement: No one is perfect, no organisation is perfect, seeking perfection from any training organisation is setting up incorrect standards and expectations. The organisations, on the other hand, should be encouraged to regularly review their system and practices and evolve through experience, professional development and knowledge. Continuous improvement must be recorded for future audits and regulatory activities. 

5. Does not penalise administrivia: ASQA or any other regulatory body should not and MUST NOT penalise any organisation based on minor administrative mistakes. 

6. Quality organisations should be appreciated and encouraged: Appreciation and acknowledgement are few factors that drive the training organisations. Good organisations must be acknowledged to set up the standards for the quality, examples and case studies should be discussed to encourage and promote quality, 

7. No TAFE or RTO favouritism: A regulatory body must follow their guidelines and protocols, they must not behave or act against the regulatory guidelines at any time. We believe TAFE and RTOs – are both critical for Australia’s economy, industry and students. 

8. Criminal and unscrupulous practices must be clearly outlined and should be handled by the Australian Federal Police or other regulatory bodies: if auditors, training staff or any other stakeholders have any concerns regarding unscrupulous providers and their practices, they should be reported to the appropriate regulatory body or police and the responsible people should be brought to justice.

9. No more updates to Certificate IV in Training and Assessment: The minimum requirement for getting into training and assessment in the VET sector should be replaced with a continuing professional development (CPD) policy. The CPD points should be focused on vocational education and training knowledge (foundation), competency-based practices such as validation and moderation, assessment writing, designing and development and technical, professional or workplace skills or practices. 

10. Experience and knowledge to get into the training and education industry and fit and proper person requirements: This should be one of the main criteria to focus on in the revised regulatory standards to ensure the right people enter into the sector and industry and there are no or minimum threats to the rebuilding of the reputation of Australia’s education and training system.

Note: We highly encourage involving experienced VET gurus, such as John Price and other highly qualified and experienced RTO consultants and auditors in the review process.