Complaint Review: VETAB - Sydney Nationwide

This is the file which has been removed from the ACPET website after VETAB OUTRAGE posted a link.

Lets look at the sequence of events:

• Back in 2006 they ask members for submissions on their problems re VETAB.
• They get submissions from members.
• They write an excellent report.
• They take no action (that we know of).
• Finally, when the report gets some publicity through this blog , they censor it.

Why are we paying our membership fees to ACPET when instead of defending us they turn into a branch of VETAB?

Why has ACPET removed this document from their website?

Document starts:

MEMBER ISSUES IN THEIR DEALINGS WITH VETAB
Report to the ACPET NSW State Committee at its meeting on 26th July 2006

The following issues have been raised by ACPET NSW members in relation to their experiences in dealing with VETAB. The feedback covers a wide range of issues such as customer service standards, administration processes, inaccurate advice and matters relating to audit. In all cases the members requested that their details remain confidential and in nearly every case they believed that their relationship with VETAB would be adversely affected by making a direct complaint. As a result, without ACPET's advocacy these issues may never have come to light.
A common thread throughout many of the submissions received by ACPET from its NSW members is VETAB's poor record against its Customer Service Standards.

It is also noted that although the standards state that VETAB "will review these customer service standards regularly in consultation with our clients" and "hold regular focus group meetings with key client groups to obtain feedback on current issues" this appears not to be occurring at any meaningful level with VETAB's most important clients, NSW RTOs.
Following is a series of case studies based on written submissions received from ACPET's NSW membership. The identities of the RTOs have been withheld at their request. We would request that, in respect of that confidence, no effort is made to identify the particular members from the facts presented below.

MEMBER A
Member A attended some VETAB workshops to learn more about becoming an RTO. The member engaged one of the presenters, a VETAB consulting auditor, to assist in setting up an AQTF compliant system for the new RTO. During the subsequent audit over 130 non-compliances were noted. Upon review of the documentation by an independent consultant it was demonstrated that the documentation supplied was compliant with the "old" AQTF standards pre 1st July 2005. There were also major deficiencies in the documentation as a whole.

Issue 1: VETAB auditors working as consultants unable to produce compliant documentation in their own right, yet sit in judgement on others.

Issue 2: Perceived conflict of interest for VETAB auditors doing consulting work "on the side" to RTOs. (This has been a recurring theme in many member comments.)

MEMBER B
Member B purchased a franchise, including a complete AQTF compliant system from a Victorian RTO of high standing. When this system was presented for audit in NSW by the franchisee there were over 160 non-compliances.

Issue 3: Whilst a number of non-compliances may have resulted from poor contextualisation of the compliance system to NSW it was clear that items that were compliant in Victoria were deemed non-compliant in NSW.
Issue 4: There is clearly a different interpretation of standards between recognition authorities which raises the issue of access and equity between RTOs in different jurisdictions.

In relation to Issue 4 above another member reports their efforts to relocate their RTO form Victoria to NSW. Although the RTO was deemed compliant in Victoria it was refused registration in NSW.

MEMBER C
Member C was audited by a VETAB officer who appeared to be unclear on ESOS requirements. When the member challenged the auditor on a number of issues the auditor responded "that if the RTO did not do exactly what she wanted she had the power to stop the RTO being reaccredited."

Issue 5: VETAB auditors wield power far in excess of their expertise and in some cases use this power in an intimidating manner.

MEMBER D
Member D reports the unfortunate case of VETAB correspondence not reaching them over the Christmas break. When the matter of the lost documentation came to light, the member requested an extension of one month to make up for the time lost. This request was denied with a VETAB employee "stating categorically that the submission would be deemed null and void if the RTO did not meet the deadline." As a result of this advice, is was decided not to go ahead with the application.

About a month later a letter was received giving a certain amount of time to complete the application; otherwise it would be deemed closed. The member was justifiably annoyed that the original refusal for one's month's extension to finalise the application was inconsistent with the subsequent letter received from VETAB.

A letter of complaint that was sent to VETAB on this matter has never received the courtesy of a reply.

Issue 6: VETAB gives verbal advice that is inconsistent with later written advice.

Issue 7: VETAB gives verbal advice that is inconsistent with policy.

Issue 8: Correspondence to VETAB goes unanswered although VETAB
Customer Service Standards state VETAB will "acknowledge all complaints in writing within 10 days".

Issue 9: Documentation and correspondence going astray seems to be a recurring theme in member complaints. It would indicate that it is possible that the document control system within VETAB may be faulty.

MEMBER E
During a variation to scope application to have re-accredited courses added to their scope of operations. Member E received a non-compliance for not having a policy to handle transitioning to new training packages even though they have no training package qualifications on their scope. The particular RTO's scope consists entirely of accredited courses approved by the WA recognition authority.

Issue 10: Auditors note non-compliances even when AQTF standard is clearly not applicable.

MEMBER F
Member F, prior to submitting their application for a training package "roll-over", rang VETAB to confirm the appropriate fees that would apply. They were advised that two of the qualifications would be category A and one would be category B - a total cost of $305. After submitting the application an email was received advising that the application would not be processed until the correct fee of $1,530 was received (which appeared to be 3 x the category C fee).

When the member queried VETAB regarding the inconsistency they were advised to contact the ITAB "as they make these decisions". The member contacted the ITAB who referred the member back to VETAB "as they were not involved with accreditation and it was a matter for VETAB".
Issue 11: VETAB gives advice that is incorrect and inconsistent.
Issue 12: VETAB often refers applicants to third parties for clarification/explanation rather than clarifying the issue directly themselves.

MEMBER G
Member G submitted an initial application for registration as an RTO due to a change in ownership. The application was submitted in August, the site audit was carried out in December and the first audit report was received in February the following year (a period of just over 23 weeks). There was no delay caused by any non-compliance on the part of the applicant. VETAB's customer service standards clearly state that VETAB will "complete all applications for initial registration within 12 weeks".

Issue 13: VETAB do not meet timeframes outlined in customer service standards. Documents submitted by the RTO in the application for registration were deemed non-compliant even though the exact same documents were deemed compliant at the last registration audit. This was the case even though the AQTF standards have not changed in the areas covered by the documents.

Issue 14: Interpretation of AQTF standards by VETAB auditors vary over time and between auditors. Moderation of auditors does not appear to have noticeably improved consistency.

MEMBER H
Member H was advised by a VETAB auditor during a site inspection that 6 square metres per student was required for delivery to overseas students and consequently the RTO did not have enough room for the capacity applied for.

Issue 15: VETAB auditors giving incorrect advice during site audits - reflects inadequate training.

Member H received a second audit report which showed areas that had been deemed compliant during the site audit had subsequently been deemed non- compliant "on reflection".
Issue 16: Compliant areas become non-compliant during the same audit.

MEMBER I
Member I reports on two applications for variation to scope. One was approved after 39 weeks (34 weeks with VETAB, 5 weeks with the RTO) and the second remains outstanding after 41 weeks (37 weeks with VETAB and 4 weeks with the RTO).

Issue 17: Time frames for handling variation to scope applications are well outside customer service standards. The member also noted that documents received from VETAB are often dated long before receipt by the RTO.

Issue 18: Measures of performance against customer service standards can be manipulated by "incorrect" dating of documents (up to weeks earlier than the date actually received by the RTO).

Member I also notes that VETAB staff rarely know when part-time "consultant" auditors are available and quotes the example of an auditor who audits in Victoria, Queensland and NSW as well as consulting to NSW RTOs.

Issue 19: Part-time auditors working a limited number of days per week are difficult to contact which in turn may slow down the audit process.

Issue 20: Consulting auditors wearing "many hats" are perceived to have a conflict of interest. For which client are they making "best endeavours"?

MEMBER J
Member J notes their auditors' tendency to "get bogged down in pedantic and bureaucratic i-dotting and t-crossing."

Issue 21: VETAB auditors focus in on insignificant issues rather than addressing the big picture.

MEMBER K
Member K is concerned that any complaint made by a student or prospective student against an RTO triggers a disproportionate response by VETAB - in this case resulting in a wide-ranging audit. This member laments that although the RTO had traded for many years and was an RTO of good standing, a single complaint could cause such a reaction.

Issue 22: VETAB should let complaints run their course through an RTO's published Complaints Handling Procedure and review the documentation before taking any action. Any subsequent action taken by VETAB should be commensurate with the seriousness of the complaint. All RTO's have a right to a presumption of innocence.

Member K also noted that during the audit arising from the complaint a number of non-compliances were raised that had been found compliant during a recent re-registration audit.

Issue 23: No reference is ever allowed to previous audits or the findings of other auditors. This means that it is not possible for the RTO to exhibit a pattern of compliance as each audit "starts from scratch". As no consistency is applied to the audit process it makes it extremely difficult to incorporate external audit into a regimen of continuous improvement.
(This issue also closely relates to Issue 14.)

MEMBER L
Member L reports an incident that occurred 12 months ago but thought remained an important issue. Paperwork for an RTO re-registration was lodged on 8 April last year. A site audit was not scheduled until 6 July. In the first two minutes of the audit the member was informed that the RTO was non-compliant as the AQTF standards had changed on 1 July. If the audit had been held one week earlier the RTO would have been compliant. As the paperwork was submitted on 8 April and the RTO had an expectation that the audit would be held within VETAB's published timeframes, it was reasonable to assume that the audit would be held prior to 30 June. There was no possible way the RTO could have foreseen the problem. The RTO was not pre-warned that the new standards would apply.

Issue 24: VETAB do not abide by their Customer Service Standards to ensure all processes are conducted to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

MEMBER M
Member M is an RTO of 15 years standing. They report that last December they applied to have courses from a reviewed training package added to their scope of registration. They advise that they are still waiting 8 months later for their scope to be amended. In order to compare how providers of the same courses in other jurisdictions had fared they contacted very similar RTOs in Melbourne and Brisbane. Both RTOs advised that the courses from the reviewed training package were added to their scope within 3 weeks of application.

Issue 25: The ability of NSW RTOs to "do business" is detrimentally affected, when compared to similar providers in other jurisdictions, by VETAB's inability to deal with applications in a timely manner. (This issue also closely relates to Issue 4 and Issue 17.)

Member M has also advised that despite numerous requests to extend the validity of the current courses while their application is under consideration has received no response. (Refer Issue 8)

TAA

A number of members expressed concern at the length of time it was taking to have TAA04 added to their scope. Members have indicated indicative timeframes as long as 7-8 months.

Issue 26: There appear to be problems with the introduction of TAA04 in NSW that are unique to this jurisdiction and have not been experienced by members in other states and territories. This raises an important access and equity issue between jurisdictions.

CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS

The following are various member comments regarding VETAB Customer Service Standards:

"Our recent dealings with VETAB have been nothing but frustrating. They do not return calls ....and provide different information depending on who you manage to connect with. We have a documented history of around 20 attempts to contact before finally having someone return our calls, emails or faxes."

"Although the Customer Service Standards say VETAB will update changes to details on the national register within 48 hours of the changes being notified, it took six weeks for the name of our contact person to be amended."

"Although the Customer Service Standards state that clear reasons will be given for any decisions VETAB make affecting an RTO's business, our submission for TAA was rejected because they thought our matrix was not right - the only reason given."

"Although the Customer Service Standards state that VETAB will listen to the views of all out clients and address any concerns they may have, a letter we sent to Margaret Willis about our concerns regarding the appropriateness of VETAB staff preparing and charging privately for AQTF and CRICOS documentation for start-up colleges has never been answered."

REPORT ON VETAB FEES:
From: The Asquith Group
To: Mr Tim Smith
National Executive Officer
Australian Council for Private Education and Training

Dear Mr Smith,

I am writing in response to our previous discussions regarding the levels of provider registration and renewal fees charged by the respective State and Territory training authorities.
As you will recall, the Asquith Group previously conducted an independent survey into the impact of AQTF compliance on private providers in 2003. This survey included several questions relating to the business costs incurred as a result of the service standards and charges imposed by the State and Territory authorities responsible for provider registration and course accreditation. Our previous survey- determined that the slow processing of applications and the charges of some jurisdictions imposed a significant cost to providers in particular jurisdictions; notably New South Wales.

We have recently undertaken an independent analysis of the fees and charges to P.TCs for initial registration as a provider, for re-registration and for course accreditation. The analysis has been based on the current information available on the respective websites of each State and Territory registering and accrediting authority as at 13 October 2006. Our findings appear to be of some relevance to your members.

To enable a valid comparison to be made, registration and re-registration fees were based on an application from a provider to deliver in two industry areas or from two Training Packages. As the attached table demonstrates, fees for initial application and registration as a provider vary markedly; from as little as $883 in Tasmania, to $3,585 in New South Wales. The average registration fee to deliver two Training Packages in all States and Territories apart from New South Wales is $1,330, so New South Wales providers are currently being charged over two and a half times more for initial registration than the average provider in other jurisdictions.

The situation is similar in relation to charges for ongoing registration. Again, assuming a registration to deliver two Training Packages (or industry areas), the average cost outside New South Wales is $724 per annum, while New South Wales providers are charged $1,845 (assuming they are offering at least 5 qualifications or courses); more than twice the charge imposed on average elsewhere.

Course accreditation comparisons also indicate a higher level of charges in New South Wales compared to all jurisdictions except the ACT (which has a higher level of charges for Diplomas, Advanced Diplomas and Vocational Graduate courses).

The large variation in charges between all jurisdictions is cause for concern from a provider perspective. Some of the larger states such as Victoria and Queenland have relatively low charges and fees, while smaller jurisdictions vary from very low fees to the higher end of the range, so it is difficult to ascribe the level of fees charged to the volume of administration required by the government authority.

I have attached a table of comparative costs across jurisdictions for your information. We would be interested in further discussions with your organization on the experience of providers in dealing with the respective authorities on registration and accreditation matters, and in particular what factors would lead to such large variation in fees levels between authorities providing essentially the same service under the AQTF.

Yours sincerely
Peter Kellock
Director
The Asquith Group
The Asquith Group
Planning - Research - Evaluation
PO Box 2155 Kew Victoria 3101

Table: Comparative VET national regulatory fees and charges
Initial Registration * Annual Registration * Course Accreditation*
New South Wales
$3,585 $1,845 $3,585
ACT
$1,333 $1,333 $4,626
Northern Territory
$1,000 $1,000 $100+ $1 per hour***
Queensland
$1,234 $514 $1,029
South Australia
$1,870 $585 $2,510
Tasmania
$ 883* $146 $1,210
Victoria
$1,064 $1,064 $1,064
Western Australia
$1,930 $430 $ no charge
Non NSW average
$1,330 $724
* based on provider being registered to deliver 2 Training Packages or industry areas to domestic students
** estimate includes provision for 12 hour validation audit at $33.27 per hour
# based on charges for a full VET qualification at Diploma, advanced Diploma level
*** Northern Territory charges at $l for each hour in excess of 100 hour.

The Asquith Group
Planning - Research - Evaluation
PO Box 2155 Kew Victoria 3101