HTO Denied Recognition

Public Statement from Health Training Organisation (New Zealand)

22 February 2007

Hon Dr Michael Cullen is expected to drive most of the health portfolios off the National Qualifications Framework through a decision last week to deny Health Training Organisation (New Zealand) recognition as an Industry Training Organisation. The training of alternative health practitioners such as acupuncturists, naturopaths, homeopaths and hypnotherapists, of beauty therapists, and of Core Health including the First Aid unit standards, is in jeopardy unless HTO(NZ) takes alternative action.

HTO(NZ) will consider a proposal to operate as a Standard Setting Body outside the Framework at a meeting in Auckland on 2 March, and the proposal is definitely the favoured option. The trustees believe that there is in fact no workable alternative.

The Minister’s letter informing HTO(NZ) of his decision, fifteen unspecific lines despite seven months of TEC ‘deliberation’, is the last straw for the sector after continual difficulties in relationships with NZQA and TEC over Framework matters. Because of the lack of available money and appropriate organisations, no health ITO was set up when such entities emerged. NZQA picked up responsibilities for portfolios outside the ITOs, but four years ago told the health sector to join another ITO or form their own, and spelt out timeframes beyond which they would begin deregistration unless this happened. NZQA then refused to offer the sector any help, and were joined in this approach by TEC. NZQA also blocked registration of reviewed alternative health unit standards in most domains for eighteen months in anticipation of the ITO application that they consequently would oppose.

The March meeting should give the sector the internal support to move forward again, with less interference from NZQA and TEC.

Explanation

Most of the existing ITOs were formed over ten years ago when the Framework was in the early stages of development. 52 ITOs came into existence as Standard Setting Bodies to take responsibilities of portfolios across the Framework, and most of these have survived. There was an expectation at that time that an ITO would take responsibility for Health, one of 17 NZQA fields, but with inaction from the Health Ministry and with the lack of the ready funding and organisation structures that were able to be utilised in the setting-up of most ITOs, it did not materialise.

A unit within NZQA, which more recently has been named National Qualifications Services, took some responsibility for development, maintenance and moderation of the subject areas on the NQF that had not been picked up by ITOs.

About four years ago NZQA conducted a reprioritisation exercise regarding the responsibilities of NQS, came up with a definition of ‘industry’, decided that the health sector met that definition, and the Health portfolios were amongst those informed that NQS would relinquish responsibility for them and they had to find a new ‘home’.

The letter from NZQA, and the Industry Training Act both outlined two alternatives. Portfolios involved could join existing ITOs or form new ITOs, and had to do so in relatively short timeframes, or NZQA threatened deregistration of unit standards and qualifications.

The problem that faced the health sector was who was going to activate such activity. Clearly the Health Ministry was not interested, and there was no obvious organisation to pick up the responsibility.

One of the sub-fields affected is that entitled Natural and Traditional Health and Healing. This involves 13 named domains – Acupuncture, Aromatherapy, Complementary Therapies, Hellerwork, Herbal Medicine, Homeobotanical Therapy, Homeopathy, Hypnotherapy, Kinesiology, Massage, Naturopathy, Reflexology and Remedial Body Therapy.

Representatives of these groups formed Health Training Organisation (New Zealand) in August 2005, set this up as a charitable trust, and investigated the alternatives.

Approaches were made by members to four possible ITOs they could join, but none was available and suitable.

HTO(NZ) decided on the alternative of setting up a stand-alone ITO, made an approach to the Tertiary Education Commission, and began preparation of an application for recognition as an ITO. It also set about finding, from a sector that certainly lacks the ready money of other ‘industries’, a funding contribution of $80-100,000 per year to back the application. The application was accompanied by supporting letters from over 50 relevant health organisations, the large proportion national bodies. The general unanimity that has been achieved in this involvement has been quite remarkable.

The Beauty Therapy sector has joined with the alternative health sector in their determination, and the application also requested NQF responsibility for the generic Core Health sub-field, which includes the well-used First Aid standards.

In the first meeting representatives had with Ian Elliott, Manager of the TEC National Team for Liaison and Development, he pleased the sector by pledging that he would help the sector find the best alternative.

However as time went on the offered help never materialised, and HTO(NZ) found that it faced opposition to forming a new ITO and insistence that joining an existing one was a better alternative, although TEC has never been able to produce any suggestion of which ITO would be suitable and available.

The recent 15 line response from the Minister presented no specific justification for the Minister’s decision. The relevant lines read,
Following consideration of your application, and advice provided by the Tertiary Education Commission and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, I have decided not to recognise the Health Training Organisation as an ITO. This decision has been informed by the requirements under section 6 of the Act, which states that the Minister must be satisfied that the applicant has the ability to effectively and efficiently carry out specific functions of an ITO. I have also given regard to section 7 of the Act, and in particular the desirability of avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort within the Industry Training system.
I understand that this decision will not be the one sought by the Health Training Organisation. However, I have requested the Tertiary Education Commission to contact all the stakeholders involved in the application, to notify them of the outcome of the application, and to outline potential options for their respective areas of education and training.

Such a response explains very little, and HTO(NZ) is left to try to read between the lines. But it also leaves the organisation in a dilemma. To force themselves into an ITO with an unsuited partner would not be in the interests of the sector, although the 2 March meeting will consider this alternative.

The more likely decision however is for HTO(NZ) to withdraw from the National Qualifications Framework. The Minister’s letter is the last straw for the sector after continual difficulties in relationships with NZQA and TEC over Framework matters. NZQA has continually refused to endorse or support HTO(NZ)’s application for recognition. It has also blocked registration of reviewed alternative health unit standards in most domains for the last eighteen months in anticipation of the ITO application that they would consequently oppose. The involvement of NZQA in advice relating to the Minister’s decision surprised HTO(NZ), as the CEO of NZQA in a letter to the sector had assured that ‘The Tertiary Education Commission is responsible for determining applications. Until the process is completed, it is not appropriate for the Qualifications Authority to comment on issues related to these applications.’

HTO(NZ) looks forward to the prospect of operating as an independent Standard Setting Body, using NZQA local qualifications and HTO(NZ) endorsed standards and qualifications, in the interests of providing the best possible training in health for New Zealanders.

ENDS

© Scoop Media