Independence from the organisation being complained about with the investigator/external decision-maker not being subject to direction; A clearly defined jurisdiction going to the services of the organisation being reviewed; The external decision body having adequate power to investigate whether the organisation being complained about has acted fairly and reasonably. The investigator/decision-maker needs a power to obtain information, inspect records, and the ability to choose a dispute resolution methodology such as mediation or conciliation; The EDR process needs to be accessible with no charge for the complainant to raise a matter; The process must operate consistently with the requirements of procedural fairness, including the organisation and complainant having the opportunity to be heard and respond to any adverse finding before an investigation and/or decision is concluded; and The EDR scheme needs to be accountable with public reporting on its work. The current EDR arrangements to the extent that they are provided by government ombudsman services would satisfy these requirements. In contrast, the avenues provided by RTOs pursuant to Standard 6 of the RTO Standards are of a variable quality and in many instances would not meet the ANZOA benchmark. Given the fragmented nature of the external dispute processes in VET, there have been calls for reform. These calls have generally argued for the establishment of a comprehensive ombudsman style service applying to all VET consumers. While these calls have not been accepted by government at this point, the Commonwealth, state, and territory governments have acted to establish the National Complaints Hotline, which aims to provide a clearinghouse so that VET consumers are able to access one point of entry and have their complaint or concern assessed and streamed into the appropriate dispute service or regulator depending on the nature of the complaint or concern raised. ASQA contends that an important improvement in the VET consumer framework could be gained by providing greater specificity as to what are acceptable features for EDR in VET. This could be achieved by making membership of an approved EDR scheme a condition of registration and the development of legislative instruments to outline the features of an acceptable scheme. A working model might be drawn from the financial services sector,
Independence from the organisation being complained about with the investigator/external decision-maker not being subject to direction; A clearly defined jurisdiction going to the services of the organisation being reviewed; The external decision body having adequate power to investigate whether the organisation being complained about has acted fairly and reasonably. The investigator/decision-maker needs a power to obtain information, inspect records, and the ability to choose a dispute resolution methodology such as mediation or conciliation; The EDR process needs to be accessible with no charge for the complainant to raise a matter; The process must operate consistently with the requirements of procedural fairness, including the organisation and complainant having the opportunity to be heard and respond to any adverse finding before an investigation and/or decision is concluded; and The EDR scheme needs to be accountable with public reporting on its work. The current EDR arrangements to the extent that they are provided by government ombudsman services would satisfy these requirements. In contrast, the avenues provided by RTOs pursuant to Standard 6 of the RTO Standards are of a variable quality and in many instances would not meet the ANZOA benchmark. Given the fragmented nature of the external dispute processes in VET, there have been calls for reform. These calls have generally argued for the establishment of a comprehensive ombudsman style service applying to all VET consumers. While these calls have not been accepted by government at this point, the Commonwealth, state, and territory governments have acted to establish the National Complaints Hotline, which aims to provide a clearinghouse so that VET consumers are able to access one point of entry and have their complaint or concern assessed and streamed into the appropriate dispute service or regulator depending on the nature of the complaint or concern raised. ASQA contends that an important improvement in the VET consumer framework could be gained by providing greater specificity as to what are acceptable features for EDR in VET. This could be achieved by making membership of an approved EDR scheme a condition of registration and the development of legislative instruments to outline the features of an acceptable scheme. A working model might be drawn from the financial services sector,
030.docx