What other ‘powers and responsibilities’ do they have

Well, this first part must relate to the NVR as the 3 Commissioners who collectively are the non- Statutory Body NVR and who as a group do not have ‘a legal identity separate from the Commonwealth’ because under Division 3 “National Vet Regulator procedures” it notes things like

·        Meetings: They must have them, keep minutes and records of decisions and can also do business via the phone

·        Quorum: Which is 2 Commissioners (only?)

And then there are others things which sound like BOTH versions of the NVR: IE “the 3 commissioners” AND the “Statutory Authority” have to do. (Seriously does any one else get as confused as I do when simply trying to talk about WHO is the NVR?)

Things like:

·        The National VET Regulator must cooperate with the Ministerial Council when the Council assesses whether the Regulator continues to comply with the Standards for VET Regulators (s178)

·        Develop and provide and comply with Strategic, Annual and Operational Plans (s 215 – 222)

The contents of these are detailed in the Act and I hope these plans will also be made public.

·        Develop and maintain the National Register (s 216) and there is list of things that it must include and it must be made available on the internet.

Interestingly the NVR also has substantial powers of delegation. According to sections 224 – 226 they can delegate powers to government authorities, occupational licensing bodies and other industry bodies and even NVR RTOs.

But in doing all of this according to s161 “The National VET Regulator has the privileges and immunities of the Crown” and s 233 explicitly states

233  Protection from civil actions

(1) This section applies to:

(a) the National VET Regulator; and

(b) a Commissioner; and

(c) a member of the staff of the Regulator; and

(d) a consultant engaged by the Regulator.

(2) A person mentioned in subsection (1) is not liable to an action or other proceeding for damages for or in relation to an act done or omitted to be done in good faith:

(a) in the performance or purported performance of any of the National VET Regulator’s functions; or

(b) in the exercise or purported exercise of any of the Regulator’s powers.

And I guess this is stand practice but it just reads to me like a ‘all care and no responsibility clause”. 

Which in many cases is fair enough, but I just wish somewhere, in relationship to RTOs, there was a clause that also said “an act done or omitted to be done in good faith” would render us “not liable to an action or other proceeding”. 

It is a shame the same ‘standards’ for our regulator do not apply to us hey  ..

Tomorrow more of a recap on the VET Quality Framework, (VQF?) Legislative Instruments and some comments on comments that are being made by other people