THE AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR PRIVATE EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Transcription

1 THE AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL FOR PRIVATE EDUCATION AND TRAINING SUBMISSION TO THE BETTER REGULATION PROJECT: Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Registered Training Organizations Prepared to inform the Office of Training and Tertiary Education Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development September

2 Background The Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) is the national industry association for private providers of post-compulsory education and training. Established in 1992, ACPET s membership today has grown to include more than 1000 organisations nationally delivering a full range of accredited and non-accredited higher education, vocational education and training and English language courses to Australian and international students in all States and Territories. In Victoria, ACPET has over 300 member companies. Private providers deliver the full range of nationally accredited AQF qualifications, from apprenticeships to traineeships to professional doctorates across disciplines as diverse as business, administration, IT, design, community services, natural medicine, the creative arts and tourism and hospitality, to name a few. In many cases the private providers work across jurisdictions, which makes the delivery of the programs more complex and often more cumbersome. Whilst TAFE institutes and universities attract a large proportion of their funding from government, private providers generate the majority of their funding from tuition delivered on a fee-for-service basis. Private providers are predominantly small to medium sized businesses and employ a significant number of people as trainers and administrative and support staff in their organisations. ACPET welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the and welcomes the commitment of the Victorian Government to cutting the existing administrative burden of regulation and alleviate this burden from registered education and training providers. Consideration of issues In the first instance, however, ACPET wishes to place on the record its appreciation of the Victorian Government in undertaking this important project. The commitment to cutting the existing administrative burden of regulation by 15 per cent in the first three years, with an overall target of 25 per cent over five years in total is commendable. ACPET has considered the information provided by the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development on the (Attachment A) and in this response concentrates on those issues and areas of regulation identified by its members as unnecessary burdens in demonstrating compliance with regulation. 2

3 As a national body, ACPET is aware of its members direct experiences that relate to the process of demonstrating compliance. Complaints are regularly received by ACPET from private providers members and non-members - about the scope and audit processes in Victoria. In particular, private providers working across jurisdictions encounter burdensome regulations. Issues The following issues of undue regulatory burden have been raised with ACPET by the registered training organisations and higher education providers delivering education and training in Victoria. These reflect genuine concern and often frustration with the over regulation that the private sector is required to comply with. Opportunities where registration, accreditation and audit process can be minimised should be adopted. As discussed at our meeting, some of these issues run across state boundaries and a national approach, perhaps requiring leadership from Victoria, would be required to affect change. 1. Data Collection Private VET providers remain very skeptical about the compulsory data collection as a Condition of Registration under AQTF Data on enrolments and completions, employer and student satisfaction. What other private industry requires this government intervention? The effort in collecting this data far outweighs its usefulness in informing risk-based management auditing. As indicators of quality, these are crude measures which have the potential to be misinterpreted. Higher education providers accessing FEE-HELP for higher education are currently required to provide their statistics to DEST for both FEE-HELP and non FEE-HELP places. It is clear why government funded/supported places need to be reported, but unclear why the rest of the statistics need reporting. However, in view of this level of reporting, and its extension, no doubt, to private VET providers once the VET FEE-HELP legislation is passed, it would be useful for the Commonwealth and States to work together to see how this information can be provided in a consistent manner, sufficient for both state and federal purposes. 2. Auditing Process A repeated concern of providers is the inconsistency of rules applied by auditors. What passes muster for one auditor is deemed inappropriate by another. The greatest issue we have faced is the inconsistency between auditors. What is acceptable as evidence for one auditor has not been acceptable to another, particularly with regards to evidence of SCH. 3

4 While this problem is demonstrably worse in other jurisdiction, great variations in audit practice and between auditors in relation to the interpretation and application of the standards does occur in Victoria. Providers have found the inexperience of some auditors a problem as they are sometimes not aware of the privacy issues involved in auditing: Auditors asked if they could take copies of financial statements simply because they seemed interesting VRQA has new, inexperienced auditors who are not aware of the private nature of some documentation Auditors not familiar with the industry that they are auditing and it is suggested that auditors should tailor their approach to the type of field/industry that the RTO delivers. Time taken for audits is far too long: who pays for am RTO s staff time when auditor takes so long? Two days are too long for RTO staff to be tied up for an initial audit Auditors took 2 days for the initial audit Issues were also raised by ACPET members relating to the training plan requirements. RTOs ensure that the training plans are compliant at the time they are issued. However, if auditing occurs 12 months after the plan was developed and the training plan requirements change, RTOs are then deemed non compliant, although they were compliant when the plan was initially issued. In this business where things change daily, and providers are required to be flexible and are constantly adapting, RTOs should be audited against the time that the trainee was enrolled. 3. Working across jurisdictions RTOs working across jurisdictions find that the regulatory requirements are inconsistent and both the compliance costs and the administrative burdens are doubled or tripled when the process is not streamlined. Rather than being efficient it is burdensome and complex, full of obstacles. 4. Duplications VRQA needs to review the way it assesses applications for extensions to scope, CRICOS and similar, that involves duplication. For example, one provider has submitted applications for a change of premises for Higher Education (SCU), Higher Education (AIPS) and VET (MEG). All the same premises, but THREE separate applications. This is a waste of time for both parties. School based Trainees need an extra signature on the training plan i.e. the school must sign showing they have endorsed the training plan. In addition they have to sign a school endorsement form. Why are both forms needed? It is unclear what the reason is for this duplication and would appear an area that could be streamlined with relative ease. CASE STUDY on Duplication by ACPET MEMBER The process (for us) of recruiting a school based student is one where the private institution markets the program to the school. The school then talks with student, assists them in a making an application, writes a letter of support for the student and 4

5 send them to the RTO for an interview. The student is interviewed and the RTO then advises the school and student that they have been accepted. The RTO then holds inductions and arranges traineeship this means signing up with the parents, students, employer, the RTO and the Apprenticeship centre. This is usually done in the January school holidays so that students can start training and placement when school reopens in January/February. All these parties have to sign the training plan and this is done at induction as everyone is in the one place. Then another player has to be added into the equation, the school, by getting their signature on the training plan. This has to be done within 2 months, and if not, the traineeship terms of employment have to be changed (i.e. they have to go from 10 hours of employment and training to 15 hours). This means extra work for employers the AAC and RTO in making the change This change is very unrealistic as students can not suddenly have another day off school yet this is what is required if the training plan signature has not been received!! (more administration!!)) There is an extra admin burden for the RTOs in obtaining the signature back from the schools. While the RTOs are aware that the schools have to know the training units, and getting a signature proves that this has happened, in reality the schools do have the information from the recruiting process and the training plans that the RTO sends them, but often they sit on the info and the training plan. The schools use the training plan to add the enrolment to their school system but they then forget to send it to the RTO. (The RTOs can t get the schools to come to the student enrolment as this is held in January and school has not yet reopened) So the RTOs have to chase the schools to get the signature This has in the past taken at least a full day every week for more than 3 months in the RTO office, and even then, some of the RTOs go over the time lines. If this happens, it means that OTTE can, and does, refuse to fund the traineeship, leaving the RTO to either take the student out of the program or carry the student for free! Given that the ASBA program is one that OTTE wants to support, refusing to fund it because a signature has been difficult to obtain within their set time frame seems strange! One has to ask if OTTE would really want high school students in a program to be removed..??? Schools do know the training content, timelines and delivery, they support and endorse students being in the program but they may have not supplied a signature in time!! This shows the extra work needed by the RTO and the school It demonstrates that schools are advised of the training program: if schools had not been advised, the student would not be attending the program in the first place. 4. Timelines CASE STUDY of meeting timelines - The Claiming of students on traineeship from OTTE OTTE have a web site claiming system and time frames by which certain activities need to be met so as to ensure trainees remain eligible for funding If these time frames are not met OTTE can, and does, refuse to fund students who are in fact eligible for funding as new workers. 5

6 Again this leaves the RTO to fund training for free or advise a client/student and employer that they are no longer eligible for state funded training Students fall off the website claim system within 3 months and 2 weeks of being placed on the system. RTO s have 3 months to commence the training and the extra 2 weeks is given as a the window for claiming While all this seems fine in theory, the reality is that a range of reasons can get in the way of ensuring that the time lines are met We understand that OTTE does this to manage its Budget allocation but the administrative burden of meeting the time lines is very high and it seems artificial at times. For an RTO with many trainees and trainers having just extra 2 weeks (after 3 months for all the training to have commenced), for them to remain on the claiming system means that the administrative process is very tight and that absolutely no errors in staff workload or communication occurs This is not realistic and makes the RTO administration very top heavy. 6