Survey responses on support for change — Consenting to the role Survey options Survey Support for retaining the current arrangements (no change) 89 (56%) Support for changing the current arrangements (change) 70 (44%) Total responses 159 Assessment of net benefit There are no costs associated with the implementation of Option 8.3.4B as the option does not require any additional actions, simply a removal of unnecessary administrative burden. The benefits associated with the implementation of Option 8.3.4B are expected to accrue to services in the form of time saved through the removal of the requirement for written consent. Similarly, regulatory authorities are expected to benefit through reduced monitoring requirements. Given the absence of costs, it is expected that even minimal benefits arising from the decreased administrative burden will result in a net benefit. Preferred option The proposed options were received with mixed levels of support during the consultation period, which can be attributed to some level of confusion in the sector regarding the implications of the options. It was put forward in several submissions that written consent was an important process for nominated supervisors as it supported a clear understanding for the supervisor regarding the nature of the responsibility they were undertaking. In response to this, it suggested that Option 8.4.3B be further clarified to ensure the proposed change is properly understood. Under the option, the written consent requirement remains for all nominated supervisors unless the approved provider is an individual (and not an entity) who is to be the nominated supervisor. It is considered that written consent is not required where a person is to be appointed as the PIDTDC as, unlike nominated supervisors, there are no other legal consequences that flow from the appointment. As such, the reference to PIDTDC has been removed from Option 8.3.4B. PREFERRED OPTION: Option 8.3.4B (with PIDTDC removed and amendment) Amend the National Law to remove the requirement for written consent if the approved provider, as an individual applicant, is to also fulfil the role of nominated supervisor. It is also noted that in all other circumstances written consent is to be required where a person is to be appointed as the nominated supervisor.
Survey responses on support for change — Consenting to the role Survey options Survey Support for retaining the current arrangements (no change) 89 (56%) Support for changing the current arrangements (change) 70 (44%) Total responses 159 Assessment of net benefit There are no costs associated with the implementation of Option 8.3.4B as the option does not require any additional actions, simply a removal of unnecessary administrative burden. The benefits associated with the implementation of Option 8.3.4B are expected to accrue to services in the form of time saved through the removal of the requirement for written consent. Similarly, regulatory authorities are expected to benefit through reduced monitoring requirements. Given the absence of costs, it is expected that even minimal benefits arising from the decreased administrative burden will result in a net benefit. Preferred option The proposed options were received with mixed levels of support during the consultation period, which can be attributed to some level of confusion in the sector regarding the implications of the options. It was put forward in several submissions that written consent was an important process for nominated supervisors as it supported a clear understanding for the supervisor regarding the nature of the responsibility they were undertaking. In response to this, it suggested that Option 8.4.3B be further clarified to ensure the proposed change is properly understood. Under the option, the written consent requirement remains for all nominated supervisors unless the approved provider is an individual (and not an entity) who is to be the nominated supervisor. It is considered that written consent is not required where a person is to be appointed as the PIDTDC as, unlike nominated supervisors, there are no other legal consequences that flow from the appointment. As such, the reference to PIDTDC has been removed from Option 8.3.4B. PREFERRED OPTION: Option 8.3.4B (with PIDTDC removed and amendment) Amend the National Law to remove the requirement for written consent if the approved provider, as an individual applicant, is to also fulfil the role of nominated supervisor. It is also noted that in all other circumstances written consent is to be required where a person is to be appointed as the nominated supervisor.
Final%20NQF%20DRIS%20January%202017.docx