FAIA’s Role in the Review of The NVETR Act 2011

FAIA continues to represent our members’ interests via active consultation with government.

In 2017, the Hon Karen Andrews MP, the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, commissioned a review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act) and its associated legislative framework. In August 2017, AECP (prior to adoption of our new business name FAIA) provided a detailed submission to this review.

The completed report by Professor Valerie Braithwaite (Australian National University) – ‘All eyes on quality: Review of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 report’ – was published in January this year. It makes five references to the AECP submission, including a direct quotation given on page 63. The AECP passages cited in the Braithwaite report relate to:

1.  The need for data collected to be ‘fit for purpose’ (unlike LQ and EQ surveys);
2.  The RTO business plan to include a broad range of private and public sources of income and not be focussed on government-funded training;
3.  The adequacy of ASQA’s enforcement powers and the earlier failure to adopt a risk-based approach;
4.  CRICOS requirements not to be applied to first aid;
5.  The inappropriateness of ASQA’s student survey in relation to first aid training.

Professor Braithwaite made a total of 23 recommendations, intended to drive improvement in the quality of training and protection of the rights of students, both of which are seen as integral to desirable student outcomes.

The Government has recently published a response to these recommendations, with some fully supported, some qualified as ‘in principle’ support, and others simply noted, such as the recommendation to create a role of Master Assessor to assess the quality of the RTO’s cohort of graduating students. One worrying recommendation that the Government ‘supports in principle’ is the idea that an RTO must submit ‘teacher quality improvement actions’ [PD] as part of its Quality Indicator report. This will add to the administrative burden without real benefit, as poor-quality providers will simply write what’s needed to satisfy the regulator.

Links to the submissions (including that from AECP), to Professor Braithwaite’s full report, and to the Australian Government Response may be found HERE.