Australian Financial Review 17 September 2012
The phrase “Moscow on the Molonglo” was coined in reference to an era of Coalition industrial and governance intervention in universities and controls on fees and enrolments, writes Glenn Withers, former CEO of Universities Australia.
The issue has returned with a vengeance, this time under Labor, as university authorities come to terms with the new regulator – the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) – which universities claim is tying them up in red tape.
But TEQSA has been far more nuanced than its twin in vocational education and training, the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), which takes a very blunt interventionist approach.
Perhaps overwhelmed by the remit of dealing with up to 5000 VET organisations rather than some 200 higher education providers, ASQA has adopted an unrelenting compliance culture requiring a massive burden of documentation and rigid adherence to its auditors’ and officials’ views of good education and business processes. But finding how to comply leads into a sometime Kafkaesque world.
Inconsistent audits, flawed risk assessments, incomplete databases, minimal guidance on good practice, opacity on evidentiary requirements, a focus on inputs rather than outcomes, an unwillingness to meet with providers, disproportion in sanctions, slow decision making and the downplaying of complaints are common industry criticisms of ASQA’s evolving system to date.
The National Skills Standards Council, chaired by John Dawkins, has been tasked with reviewing the standards being regulated by ASQA.
The skills council will need to be assiduous in its deliberations. Above all, it will need to interrogate the conventional wisdom now prevailing in the relevant policy community and some media that tough VET regulation is essential and justifies open season for the regulator.
There is a view that there have been too many shonks and migration rorts. Any deregistrations or sanctions are seemingly therefore justified and indeed represent victories in the eyes of many.
The very real risk is exaggeration and over-reaction and massive collateral damage. Good providers are caught up, regulatory costs escalate, innovation and flexibility are stifled – and a flight to informal training markets ensues.