Background
3.1
At the time of endorsement of the Protocols, six States and Territories currently had legislation governing the recognition of awards (protecting the award titles) offered by non self-accrediting institutions. Western Australia was developing such legislation, and the ACT had policy guidelines which had this effect.
3.2
All jurisdictions examined both the quality of the proposed course, and the capacity of the provider to deliver it. In some States (NSW, Qld, and NT) the provider’s capacity was considered in the context of the accreditation of the course. In the remaining States, the accreditation of the course and the registration of providers were separate requirements but both essential to recognition of the award.
3.3
MCEETYA approved protocols had been in place for some time to enable accreditation across jurisdictions for courses to be offered simultaneously in two or more States or Territories.
3.4
The awards protected under the relevant legislation differed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and there was no common position on what awards should be protected. In practice, in spite of these legislative differences, all States protected bachelors, masters and doctoral degrees, and awards of graduate certificate and graduate diploma were accredited under higher education legislation or procedures. Some award levels including diploma, graduate certificate and graduate diploma were able to be accredited under both higher education and vocational education legislation. This lack of uniformity caused some difficulties in cross-jurisdictional accreditation processes.
3.5
In practice, there is strong common ground with respect to the criteria and processes used for accreditation of non-university courses.
Legislative basis for accreditation and provider registration
3.6
There should be a legislative framework (specific legislation or Ministerial policy or Guidelines) to protect the titles of specific higher education awards, which establishes a process and criteria for the accreditation process.
3.7
Operation as a non self-accrediting provider of protected awards should only be authorised under such a framework.
3.8
Where legislative provisions relating to higher education are located in legislation which also deals with vocational or school education, it is desirable that provisions relating to higher education should be located together, in a separate part of the relevant Act.
Definitions
3.9
The awards covered by higher education legislation and processes should be those defined as higher education awards on the Australian Qualifications Framework 
.
3.10
The term ‘course accreditation’ includes the assessment, approval, accreditation or authorisation of courses of study that lead to higher education awards, and must include consideration of a provider’s capacity to deliver the course, where provider registration or approval to operate is not a separate requirement.
3.11
The term ‘provider registration’ includes the registration, authorisation or approval of a provider to deliver one or more courses of study leading to a higher education award.
Top
Process for assessing applications
3.12
The process for assessing applications should be transparent and equitable, and should be documented for the information of applicants.
3.13
The process should involve the appointment of an expert panel, with extensive knowledge of higher education courses in the same or similar fields, which is independent of the provider. The provider should have the right to comment on the panel’s composition.
3.14
The panel must report to a legally authorised decision-maker, who should be bound to take advice from the panel in arriving at a decision.
3.15
The review process must involve consideration of the applicants’ capacity to
deliver the course, including financial capacity, and must include verification of claims made by the institution through interaction with the institution and its representatives.
3.16
Jurisdictions should use appropriate investigatory mechanisms to ensure financial probity and ensure that an applicant is a fit and proper person to establish and operate an institution offering higher education programs.
3.17
Courses should be subject to re-accreditation after a maximum of five years.
3.18
Applicants should be required to disclose their prior history of applications for accreditation in all jurisdictions, including the outcomes of such processes, as a condition of making an application.
3.19
Jurisdictions should maintain a public register of accredited courses and the registered providers of such courses.
3.20
Applicants must be willing to report confidentially to jurisdictions, as a condition of accreditation, statistical information on their higher education offerings covering student load and enrolments, fields of study and some staff statistics. Jurisdictions are to report this information annually on a ‘whole of jurisdiction’ basis, in a format compatible with Commonwealth statistics collection.
3.21
A fee for processing an application based on partial cost recovery should be charged. National consistency in the fee levels is desirable.
Top
Criteria
3.22
The following broad criteria should be common to all jurisdictions:
- the course design and content should satisfy the requirements set in the Australian Qualifications Framework for the award level;
- the course should be comparable in requirements and learning outcomes to a course at the same level in a similar field at Australian universities;
- the delivery arrangements, including matters of institutional governance, facilities, staffing, and student services are appropriate to higher education and enable successful delivery of the course at the level proposed; and
- the provider has appropriate financial and other arrangements to permit the successful delivery of the course, and is a fit and proper person to accept responsibility for the course.
3.23
Detailed review criteria should be developed to assist assessment panels and providers in their work.
3.24
Authorities responsible for recommending accreditation and approval of courses offered by non-university private providers should publish annually reports on their procedures and criteria used, summaries of approvals given and processes to be followed to ensure consistency.
3.25
The processes for quality assurance followed by State and Territory jurisdictions should be subject to audit by the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA).