Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

The government does not support the amendment proposed by Labor. The amendment is unnecessary and duplicates powers the regulator already has. The time periods in the legislation are upper limits—that is, up to seven years. ASQA already has the power to make decisions both at the time of initial registration and renewal to register a provider for less than the maximum of seven years. Subsection 157(4) of the act currently requires ASQA to apply the risk assessment framework when performing its functions. It is unnecessary and duplicative to reference the risk assessment framework in relation to the renewal of registration.

The amendment will also see ASQA diverting resources away from the most effective regulatory actions. ASQA has also advised the government that to incorporate the notion of a low-risk rating into the legislation as the basis for the period of registration is extremely problematic. It will in fact divert resources from more effective compliance monitoring and action against poor providers. A provider risk rating is only one element of ASQA's overall risk approach to regulation. ASQA has previously advised the government that re-registration audits are the least effective method of identifying poor performing providers, leading to less sanction activity than other types of audit.

ASQA's transition to a full, proportionate risk-based approach places less emphasis on the registration life cycle and more emphasis on the collection and analysing of data to determine where problems exist in the sector. This more proactive form of regulation includes annual environmental scanning and six-month monitoring, to properly identify where problems exist; collecting and using data analytic tools and better use of intelligence, including complaints, to direct regulatory interventions; and using profiles rather than simple risk ratings to better identify potential problems in the market. ASQA can then direct its resources to addressing these problems and higher-risk providers and practice.

Moving to a seven-year registration cycle is consistent with this risk approach. The amendment would tie up ASQA's resources in dealing with reviews of and appeals against its risk rating of providers rather than addressing poor practice. Including a reference to risk ratings in the renewal process will leave the regulator vulnerable to lengthy disputes around rationales for discriminating between various providers on the basis of untested risk ratings. Administrative appeals processes can be lengthy and resource intensive for the regulator, with matters taking at least eight to 12 months to resolve.

All in all, an amendment to draw distinctions between the initial registration period and the re-registration period would complicate the regulatory architecture, lead to the potential for challenge and litigation attaching to the regulator's decision as to the allocation of a risk rating, misinterpret the relative role that a risk rating plays in an overall and comprehensive risk approach to regulation and divert resources of the regulator towards red tape and administration and away from identifying and acting upon high-risk providers and poor practices. So the government does not support that amendment.

In closing, I do not blame the current shadow minister for amendments such as these or, in fact, the situation we find ourselves in in the vocational education and training regulatory space, because she has been trying to be proactive and as helpful as possible to the government over these matters which are important. But the seeds of the issues we are dealing with now were created when the system was first established by the previous government when Senator Carr was the minister. Yet again, Senator Carr has proven why he should not be the shadow minister for education.

See this speech in context