Regulation Update

10 August 2012

As previously advised, following a meeting with English Australia on 12 July, ASQA and TEQSA have been discussing the criteria they will use to determine which providers will be regulated by which body.

English Australia has now received a letter from TEQSA indicating the following:

The legislative instrument gives ASQA designated authority for all ELICOS delivered by a National VET Regulator registered training organisation (within the meaning of the NVETR Act)

TEQSA has designated authority for:
- All ELICOS delivered by a registered higher education provider (HEP) (within the meaning of the TEQSA Act); and
- All providers providing or seeking to provide ELICOS under an entry arrangement with at least one registered higher education provider.

TEQSA and ASQA have applied the following principles in determining the allocation of ELICOS providers to the two regulators:
- minimise change to current arrangements for the sector while being consistent with the legislative instrument;
- simplicity in identification of relevant regulator and communication to the sector.

They have jointly conducted a review of all ELICOS providers. In the first instance they excluded those providers delivering ELICOS in the capacity of a school. Remaining providers have been allocated to the two regulators, with the exception of stand-alone ELICOS providers, and the allocation is set out in the table below:

* In the interests of streamlined regulation, delivery of ELICOS by an RTO where there are no higher education courses on the scope of registration takes precedence over any entry arrangement the ELICOS/RTO provider has with a higher education provider.

Stand-Alone ELICOS Providers

There are approximately 71 stand-alone ELICOS providers on CRICOS currently delivering ELICOS.

It is proposed that a joint letter from ASQA and TEQSA will be sent to these providers, asking them to provide evidence of a formal pathway arrangement, if such an arrangement exists. Evidence should include either:

a) being a DIAC-approved partner for the purposes of streamlined-visa processing; or

b) having a signed contract with a registered higher education provider which indicates the existence of such a pathway, validated if necessary by a history of a significant number of international students articulating to higher education qualifications.

Both TEQSA and ASQA believe that the proposed allocations in the table above, and the criteria for assessing entry arrangements for stand-alone ELICOS providers, are true to the principles outlined above and are consistent with the intention of the legislation.

TEQSA have reiterated that they welcome the opportunity to work with the ELICOS sector and that they see TEQSA's regulatory responsibility for a specific group of ELICOS providers to be entirely consistent with their approach to regulation of the higher education sector, where strong English language skills play an important role in successful learning outcomes.

TEQSA have also indicated that they will continue to work closely with ASQA to implement these arrangements and harmonise, where possible, fees and processes for ELICOS providers.

English Australia will be meeting again with ASQA and TEQSA soon.  Member colleges are encouraged to provide feedback on your experiences/needs so that these issues can be raised if necessary.

A member college recently raised the following query with AEI regarding how to deal with students who default on their tuition fee payments:

“The SCV Report Options Quick Reference Guide on PRISMS advises that providers intending to terminate a student's course because of non-payment of fees must activate the internal appeals process. Can you clarify if the appeals process referred to is as specified in the National Code. If so, this has the potential to financially disadvantage ELICOS providers.  Most ELICOS students prior to the implementation of the TPS legislation on July 1st paid their course fees on acceptance. The changes to legislation would enable a student who enrols for more than 24 weeks to default on payment for the second study period and to remain in course for the 20 days allowed to lodge an appeal. As the student's enrolment must be maintained during the appeals process, a student whose appeal was not upheld could potentially choose not to pay the remaining course fees, but would have completed up to 5 weeks free tuition.”

They have kindly shared with us AEI’s written response to their query which provides some useful advice regarding this kind of situation:

“The appeals process outlined in the Quick Reference Guide on PRISMS is the same appeals and complaints process as outlined in Standard 8 of the National Code. If you send a student of Notice of Intention to report them for non-payment of fees, you must inform them of their right to access your complaints and appeals system. If a student chooses to appeal your intention to report them for non-payment of fees, whilst you must maintain their enrolment, you are not required to continue offering learning opportunities throughout the complaints and appeals process. This prevents the situation where a student whose appeal is not upheld from receiving tuition free of charge. In addition, under Standard 3 of the National Code, you may wish to clearly state in the student’s written agreement the consequences for the student if fees are not paid, including the student not being allowed to attend classes during the appeals process, debt collection being enforced, as well as having their enrolment and visa ultimately cancelled.”