Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 3:46:21 to 4:04:24
The committee reviews ASQA's cost recovery model and the impact of registration fees on small training providers. The agency details its triage process for tip-offs regarding fraudulent qualifications and fake certificates.
Topics: Education, Cost recovery, Public safety, Whistleblower protections
Speakers: Saxon Rice, Senator Matt O'Sullivan, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Senator Penny Allman-Payne, Unknown Speaker
>> Um, look, at this point, we do need to let you go. So, thank you, Mr. Bradford and I'm calling Asa to the table um for I would like to now welcome officials from the Australian Skills Quality Authority, including its chief executive officer, Miss Saxon Rice. Welcome to you. Did you have an opening statement? >> Great. Senator Nice. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Um, can you please walk me through the consultation process ASCA undertook with registered training organizations, particularly smaller providers for the most recent changes to ASCA's annual registration charge?
>> Certainly, Senator, um, what the whole of the process was was a complete review of ASWA's cost recovery implementation statement. So, um, we are a fully cost recovered agency. We have been for since 2022. So for four years now um we have progressively moved to a full cost recovery model and we undertook a full uh review of all of our charging because in the period since we last um consulted with the sector and had set our fees and charges which was in 2022. uh we have had considerable changes to the way in which we regulate the activities that we need to charge for um as well as the composition of what forms the annual registration charge. So we have um our fees and charges are made up of two key areas. So we have an annual registration charge and that's a charge that cannot be attributed to any individual the the activities that form the cost of that charge that total charge are attributed to the sector as a whole. So then we need to um work out a methodology for the aortionment of the annual registration charge to the sector to individual providers. And then the second part of our uh fees relate to entity directed charges. So that's for for example an individual provider who lodges a renewal of uh registration application or u an individual provider for whom we are undertaking a performance assessment there's an individual charge directly to that uh provider. So um the process that we undertook as part of um the full review of all of our um uh cost recovery was in line in line with the Commonwealth um charging framework and the Commonwealth charging policy. Um we worked together with the department of finance. We um worked together uh certainly in terms of a consultation paper that we um put out to the sector. I can check the exact dates but I believe it was around the end of January, beginning of February this year. Okay. >> Um we consulted over a period of one uh at least one month uh that included a webinar.
>> Are you able to provide a briefer response? I just I just want to make sure in the interest of time I want to make sure we can get some of these.
>> I guess it was a comprehensive consultation process and including with all of the states and territories.
>> Okay. So I suppose I've been contacted by numerous small training organizations who are extremely concerned by these fee increases and what what factors were considered in this change um which for example sees an organization moving from 999 students to a thousand students hit with an increase of more than 50% in their annual registration charge. So the
annual registration charge and its aortionment to the sector has always been made or has has been undertaken through an attribution of the size and scope of a provider. The size being the number of students and the scope of their registration being the number of qualifications that they have on scope.
So I suppose um can I understand what modeling was done by ASCAR on the disproportionate effect of these changes on small providers and short course providers given the model fails to distinguish between single units of competency or short courses and full certificates or diplomas for the purposes of the reported number of students within the fee calculation.
So until this most recent change for providers who uh only had units of competency on scope the number of students had not been factored as part of the calculation of where in the matrix of the annual registration charge they fell. What we have observed though over recent years is um an increase in the number of providers who have significant numbers of units of competency on scope. So the change in methodology as part of this review was to consider the average number of units that make up any qual qualification is approximately 10 units. So in order to ensure that we had the right aortionment of providers in terms of where they fall in the matrix, we cons as part of our consultation with the sector was that we were changing the methodology so that for every 10 units of competency that a provider had on their scope that would be equivalent to one qualification in terms of the way in which the size and scope was considered for the annual registration charge.
>> Okay. So I suppose why does the annual registration charge not include additional fee tiers beyond a thousand students to better reflect the regulatory effort required for larger
providers? There's two aspects to that. Um, Senator, one is the annual registration charge itself is not reflective of the regulatory effort attached to any individual provider because what makes up that particular charge under the um the charging framework but also the legislation is ASU's functions that are relevant to the sector as a whole. So then we have to look at a meth methodology for the aortionment of that. So when we look at the number, so we've had for quite some time.
>> Can I just ask you did ASCA consider an alternative fee schedule to help smaller training providers or short course providers at all?
>> Um so we within the context of the consideration of where all of the providers fall, we know that 83% of all providers because the we we regulate more around about 3,800 providers in total. So it's very diverse sector. Um we know that about 83% of all providers fall within the bottom 50% of all annual registration charge tiers. So 83% actually sit in the bottom 50% of the annual registration charge tiers. Um we certainly considered that there may uh impact in certain specific circumstances and for that um we there is provision within the legislation to consider a partial waiver of um >> of feasal charges. There's a specific legal test for that. Okay. >> Um, so far we have received I think eight requests for partial waiver of the annual registration charge.
>> Is is that due to unawareness of that availability or I mean you said there's eight. I imagine that if there were more providers out there who understood that was available to them they'd probably take that up. Can can I just ask you quickly and you might have to take this on notice. How many complaints have been received to date from small or short course providers about the changes um to
notice. Senator.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you,
>> Senator Sullivan. Senator Sullivan, take us home.
>> Might take us home. Okay. This will be speed questions with speedy answers, but I can uh I won't pressure you too much, though. Um I'd like to start by understanding how ASQA handles tip offs about fraudulent qualifications.
Um all tip offs, Senator, are received and assessed and considered as part of the overall intelligence um that we receive more broadly. Um we as you know established the tip off line uh I believe in October 2023. Um we have received considerable um thousands of tip offs since that time and assessed all of those. We're not a complaints handling body though and that's very deliberately the case within our established legislation. But we certainly receive all of that information, assess it, consider it against everything else that we uh know in relation to where that information has come from and take appropriate
>> At some point, do you triage? Is there is there a point in that process chain that you triage? How do you determine is some if something is maybe a high priority? your safety for example taken into consideration?
>> Absolutely. We um as part of all of the consideration that we have, we assess our regulatory risk priorities um at least on an annual basis, but um often more regularly than that depending on the nature of the information that we're receiving.
>> Do you have a time frame that you work towards in terms of responding to those tip offs?
>> Uh we don't respond to the tip offs. So, and it's probably important just to clarify there that we um do certainly um acknowledge receipt of all tip tip offs that we receive. Um we then work through and we have been receiving volumes. So, we we obviously work through um the information received as quickly as possible. Um we then action appropriately based as a riskbased regulator all of the consideration of those tip offs is based on risk. So that would mean that if um uh the information for example was um in relation to a uh a more high-risk um qualification or industry area or those sorts of things. Um again it is combined with all of the rest of the information that we hold. Um but then we were to take appropriate
action based on that. you refer to police for example if there's something that's unlawful
>> of course
>> work safe if it's a safety sort of matter in a you know state regulator do you do all that >> um is there a formal protocol in relation to that gate of decision to >> or is it sort of
>> to refer to external agencies >> uh I would have to because senator we have a number of um uh ongoing engagements with external agencies. So it depends on the nature if I can put it that way. I'm happy to take any specifics um on notice and and provide you with further detail. But I mean I guess as um as a bit of an example, we are working with multiple um uh state police um other regulators, Commonwealth regulators, the fraud fusion task force. We have protocols, information sharing,us all in place as part of um all of those operations that we would share information.
>> And is the the person that provides the tip off, the whistleblower, uh do they get any feedback? Uh, no
senator. We, as I say, we acknowledge receipt of the information, but we don't provide um ongoing updates on any of the action that we take um as particularly
>> Reason why you don't
>> because we we certainly don't keep um >> uh complainants informed of ongoing regulatory activity, but we're not a complaints handling body. Most of
>> I want to go to something specific. Um the remaining questions I've got here are general which I put on notice. Um so I'm sure you're aware of the reporting in in the age earlier this month detailing a fake qualifications racket operating across Victoria's big bill. The age reported hundreds possibly thousands of fraudulent construction certificates have been issued over four years. The article also reports that ASCA was tipped off about this in January 2023 by the training organization NSTA, but they never got a response. Can ASQA confirm it received a complaint from NSTA in January 23 uh about the fraudulent construction qualifications?
>> Um probably some clarification to the the detail of the um the question there Senator. So yes, we received a uh information from NSTA. Um but the we received um information twice. The first time was on the 6th of December 2023 and that was in relation to a single allegedly fraudulent statement of attainment and we opened an investigation into that matter. NSTA though was simply acknowledged we acknowledged receipt of that information at the time. >> Yeah. >> We received a subsequent tip off from NSTA on the 23rd of January 2024. >> Yeah. And that was again in regarding a further single allegedly fraudulent um statement of attainment. >> Uh I believe that was the one that was referred to in the um media in the age most recently that particular um
>> yeah I think we're talking about I believe that. Um so can I just confirm that that's the same report that identified the suspected issuer to be Mr. Jack Yunes.
>> The that would have been the um the tip off on the 23rd of January 2023. Thank
you. Uh uh did did anyone at ASUA contact the complainant after acknowledging receipt?
>> Any other contact? >> Sorry, Senator, I didn't hear that
>> Be pardon.
>> I'm sorry. I didn't hear that question.
>> Did anyone at ASQA contact the complainant after the acknowledging
>> The contact NSTA
>> the complainant if Yeah.
>> No, we acknowledged receipt of the information. communication. We did launch though as I um mentioned an investigation into the information that was received.
>> Did you refer the complainant uh sorry the complaint uh that you received to Victoria Police, Work Safe Victoria or any other agency?
>> So Senator the process that we undertook in relation to our investigation um because there were two isolated incidents. So we were certainly not aware of any uh and ne nor did the information refer to any um widespread fraudulent activity. It is also probably important to distinguish between um bogus qualifications which are quite literally fraud um and criminal activity >> and qualifications which as you know we have been involved for some time now in having to consider >> um the legitimacy of their issuance um albeit having been issued through a a a registered training organization and where we've um had the authority to cancel those qualifications. So, they're two very different um two very different matters. Um from a bogus qualifications perspective, we have um some limited powers within our um uh legislation in order to consider those. M >> the difficulties that we experience there is often the um or most often almost um uh often by definition the um recipient is complicit. >> So we um where we seek to engage with the recipient um we often um have no the recipient will not engage. Um so from that perspective um we have been continuing to work for example with the New South Wales building commission in relation to I believe more than 900 licenses that the building commission has now uh cancelled on the basis of bogus qualifications. So >> we certainly are involved in many forum where we raise these issues.
>> I'm really interested in that but I've got a minute. Um can you provide more more information on that on notice? I'm quite interested in understanding that. Um just just finally uh since January 23, has ASQA received any other complaints or tip offs about Mr. Yunes or any other aliases identified?
>> Um Senator, I just clarify that it was January 2024 was the first information we received in relation to that individual. Um but they would probably have to take any further detail on notice particularly also acknowledging that it is um relevant to an ongoing police investigation.
>> Thank you. I've got like about another 20 questions on this but I'll um >> oh we'll stay back.
>> um thank you Senator O Sullivan for agreeing to do that. Um and thank you Miss Rice. Um that does conclude today's hearing. So, I'd like to thank all witnesses who appeared, Handside Broadcasting, and our secretariat for their assistance. And I also thank my fellow members of the committee for uh their collegiality and professionalism in conducting today's hearing. I remind senators that the committee has agreed that any written questions on notice should be lodged with the secretariat by Thursday the 5th of November, 2026. The