1
2
The Australian Qualifications Framework Council (AQFC) and the European Qualifications
Framework Advisory Group (EQF-AG) have the role to develop and maintain, respectively, the
Australian national qualifications framework and the European transnational qualifications framework and agreed, in February 2014, to commence alignment of the Australian Qualifications Framework and the European Qualifications Framework.
At a meeting of experts from both agencies in April 2014, it was agreed that the strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment of the two frameworks should be documented to inform the alignment process. In reaching the Australian view, this paper commences with a brief outline of the:
 relationships between Europe and Australia
 AQF and EQF including their structures and associated policies, and
 context in which they operate.
The AQF’s objective relating to alignment 3 is based on the imperative of meeting the demands for efficient and reliable qualification recognition arising from the increasing international mobility of students and skilled workers in a qualifications-based labour market.
The data in this section indicates that there is strong evidence of close diplomatic and trade relationships between Australia and Europe with significant flows of population in both directions for employment and study. In addition, the evidence points to a growing tradition of cooperation in education and training projects between Australia and Europe. The strengths and ongoing nature of these relationships provide the foundation for real strengths and benefits of alignment of the AQF and the EQF.
Australia's tertiary education relationship with the European Union (EU) is active and wide-ranging with activities including policy interaction and supporting student mobility.
Policy dialogues that seek to address strategic issues related to the state of education systems and policies pursued in the EU and Australia have been held consistently since 2009. These dialogues aim

 to reinforce bilateral and multilateral cooperation at both the administrative and policy level and provide enhanced understanding of education and training policies and developments in the EU and
Australia.
The Policy Dialogue program has included:
 University reform and the modernisation agenda (2009)
 Qualifications frameworks (2010)
Early childhood education (2011)
International Education (2012)
1 The term ‘alignment’ is used in Australia; the EQF uses the term ‘referencing’. The definitions are similar
2 Information for this section is drawn from the EQF website www.ec.europa.eu/eqf , the Joint EU-Australia study: Study on
the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of workers and learners June 2011 and the ETF publication
Global qualifications framework inventory
3 See section 2.3
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 1 | P a g e

 Rethinking Education: challenges and opportunities (2013)
Since 2003, Australia and the EU have jointly funded eight rounds of bilateral joint cooperation projects known as Encounter: Australia-Europe. Encounter is part of the EU’s Industrialised Countries
Instrument Education Cooperation Programme (ICI ECP). To date, Encounter has seen 22 higher education and vocational education and training (VET) projects funded. At the completion of the eighth round, over 1400 Australian and European students will have studied overseas in either the
EU or Australia as part of these projects. Encounter mobility projects and joint degrees aim to develop innovative curricula, joint credit transfer arrangements, support academic cooperation and encourage student mobility in a variety of disciplines.
Australia’s involvement in the European Erasmus Mundus and Erasmus+ programs has provided scholarships for students and doctoral candidates to participate in high-level Erasmus Mundus programs at masters or doctoral level or the new Erasmus+ Joint Master Degrees programs offered by a consortium of European and non-European higher education institutions.
The EU-Australia relationship in education is also enhanced through the activities of several faculty programs at universities in Australia: ANU, RMIT and Monash Universities.
The Joint Statement (see Attachment 1) issued at the end of the 2010 policy dialogue on qualifications frameworks included the statement that:
Qualifications Frameworks have a central role in promoting permeability, lifelong learning and mobility within and throughout qualifications systems. Aligning these systems is not a remote academic exercise, but offers concrete benefits (i) to citizens as it promotes their seamless progression and smooth mobility and (ii) to modern knowledge-based societies as they prosper thanks to a more highly skilled and versatile workforce.
In light of the inspiring discussion we had at today’s Policy Dialogue, we agree on a number of key joint actions to underpin our co-operation and to support mutually beneficial strategic outcomes.
Following the 2010 joint dialogue on qualifications frameworks, Australia funded the Joint EU-
Australia project: Study on the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of
workers and learners June 2011. This study analysed existing evidence about the role of qualifications frameworks in supporting the mobility of workers and students, discussed the potential role of frameworks in limiting obstacles to qualifications recognition and outlined the possibilities and opportunities for linkages between the AQF and the EQF. The joint study resulted in recommendations that clearly signalled the European Commission’s interest in alignment of the EQF and the AQF. This proposal for establishing alignment with the AQF is accepted as such by the EQF
Advisory Board.
4
Australia and the European Union (EU) enjoy a constructive and substantial bilateral relationship built on a shared commitment to freedom and democratic values and a like-minded approach to a broad range of international issues. This relationship has continued for more than 50 years. Australia and the EU have a convergence of views on many global economic issues and work together in the
G20 context to meet the current challenges facing the international economy, including the sovereign debt crisis in the euro area, and to promote global economic recovery and growth.
4 This section is drawn from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: European Union Fact sheet December
2013 http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/european_union/ and European Union brief http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/european_union/eu_brief.html
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 2 | P a g e

The 28 members of the EU as a bloc constitute one of Australia's largest trading and investment partners. Total two-way trade with the EU was valued at A$81.6 billion in 2012; representing 13.2% of Australia's total trade (trade figures exclude imports of aircraft since September 2008 and services trade for Croatia). Australia and the EU cooperate increasingly closely in the Asia-Pacific region, including to enhance security, stability and good governance, and to improve the coordination of development cooperation assistance among donors to the region. Australia has a number of formal bilateral agreements with the EU and its institutions.
The Australia-EU Partnership Framework currently sets out the future direction of bilateral cooperation. The framework which replaces earlier agreements dating to 1997 was launched during
Australia-EU Ministerial Consultations in Paris on 29 October 2008. It is a document which outlines specific cooperative activities and is designed to be revised regularly. The first revision of the
Partnership Framework, launched during the Australia-EU Ministerial Consultations in Stockholm on
8 October 2009, provides an updated focus on practical cooperation in the following areas:
 shared foreign policy and global security interests

 the multilateral rules-based trading system and the bilateral trade and investment relationship the Asia-Pacific region

 energy issues, climate change and fisheries and forestry science, research, technology and innovation, education and culture and facilitating the movement of people.
A new Partnership Framework currently is under negotiation and proposes to elevate the bilateral relationship by negotiating a treaty-level framework agreement, to further strengthen and deepen engagement with the EU.
Australia and Europe maintain close political contact. Heads of State, Ministers and government officials from both countries participate in meetings and conferences on a wide range of issues including health, education, transport, justice, quarantine and many others. The EU has been represented in Australia since 1981 by a Delegation of the European Commission, now a Delegation of the European Union. The Delegation's role is to represent the EU; to further develop bilateral relations in the political, economic, commercial, environment, social and cultural fields, including new opportunities for cooperation; to inform the EU on political, economic, trade and development matters in both Australia and New Zealand; to promote and protect the EU's interests and values and to spread knowledge and to raise awareness of the EU in Australia and New Zealand.
People-to-people links between Australia and Europe are deep and longstanding. Australia's cultural identity draws heavily on our predominantly European heritage. Nearly 70 per cent of Australians have European ancestry. Almost 30,000 new European migrants arrive annually and over 1.2 million
Europeans visit Australia and 1 million Australians travel to Europe each year. In addition, over half a million Australians living and working abroad are in Europe.
5
The EU services market, particularly in the education and tourism sectors, is an important market for Australian service providers.
The flow of students between Australia and Europe is small 6 but nonetheless not insignificant.
UNESCO 2013 data indicates that the United Kingdom, Germany and France were the three most popular European destinations for Australian higher education students wishing to study either a full
5 ibid
6 Approximately 3,000 students at ISCED 5 and 6 in 2010 (UNESCO Global Education Digest table 10)
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 3 | P a g e

or part qualification abroad. Only the United States and New Zealand were more popular destination countries.
Table 1 below documents the number of European students in Australia in 2012-13.
7 The source countries with the most visas granted were Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Spain and France.
Table 1: European student visas granted in 2012-13
EU/non-EU countries
EU countries
ELICOS/Non award
20782
Schools
2148
VET
8851
Higher education
(including postgraduate)
5038
TOTAL
36819
Other
European countries
Total
1063 130 486 1085 2764
21845 2278 9337 6123 39583
There is strong evidence of close diplomatic and trade relationships between Australia and Europe with significant flows of population in both directions for employment and study. In addition, the evidence points to a growing tradition of cooperation in education and training projects between
Australia and Europe. The strengths and ongoing nature of these relationships provide the foundation for real strengths and benefits of alignment of the AQF and the EQF.
It is highly unlikely that two major frameworks such as the EQF and the AQF would coexist without any sort of linkages developing, especially given the high mobility flows between Europe and Australia. Sooner or later, some form of linkages will develop, formally or informally. Some links already exist, as some European NQFs or some systems
(that are referenced to the EQF) have identified how the AQF relates to the NQF or how
AQF qualifications refer to the national qualifications system.
8
Qualifications frameworks are rapidly emerging around the world with 142 countries identified by the ETF as being involved in the development and implementation of qualifications frameworks.
Before 2000, only a handful of countries had National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs).
These first frameworks were developed to address specific challenges for linking, regulating or developing qualifications. A second generation of frameworks developed in the early
2000s has been able to draw upon the different national experiences, but it is really over the last five years that we have seen a huge surge in developments of NQFs which aim to link qualifications within and between countries. The majority of countries developing national qualifications frameworks today are also involved in ‘regional’ (that is, a cluster of neighbouring countries) or transnational frameworks. However, it should be added that how advanced individual countries are in developing frameworks, and in their moves
7 Department of Immigration and Citizenship Offshore and onshore (visa) grants for 2012-13 program year 2013
8 Joint EU-Australia study: Study on the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of workers and learners
June 2011 page 8
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 4 | P a g e

towards regional frameworks, varies considerably, and many are still in the early stages of conceptualisation and design.
NQFs are now part of a wider search for international solutions in education and training.
They are also an attempt to support mobility at a time when economies are increasingly integrated and interdependent, where technical specifications of products or services are becoming more unified and where labour migrates across borders.
9
It is not unsurprising that with the number of countries developing and implementing qualifications frameworks there are clear commonalities in the ways they are constructed.
Typically, qualifications frameworks classify qualifications according to a hierarchy of levels, the qualifications allocated to a particular level depending on their complexity and challenge. The number of levels in a framework varies according to national, or international, need. Almost all modern qualifications are expressed in learning outcomes, which are statements of the knowledge, skills and competences a learner is expected to acquire in order to obtain a qualification.
10
The common use of a taxonomy of learning outcomes for the levels and qualification types enables coherence and consistency in the way in which qualifications are described as well as clarity about the differences and relationships between qualification types and between levels.
The outcomes of implementation of NFQs are clear: that, firstly, ‘a clearer understanding of what qualifications mean will make it easier for people to move from one type or level of learning to another…in all cases previous learning can be taken into account, enabling people to pursue the learning they want when they wish either at home (or in another country) without unnecessary obstacles.’ 11 However as NQFs do not operate alone but with for example, the associated policies, credit systems and quality assurance frameworks, these additional features are critical to, secondly, enable ‘a shared understanding of qualifications and how they relate to each other… (resulting in) improved links between different parts of national education and training systems; how systems in other countries relate to each other; and how education and training can be relevant to labour market needs.’ 12
Collectively this enables qualifications to be more easily compared by individuals, employers and institutions and provides a basis for international comparability to be made, supporting mobility of learners and workers across the globe.
The European Parliament and Council of the European Union adopted the European Qualifications
Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF-LLL), commonly known as the EQF, in 2008. Agreed upon by the European Union member governments, the EQF is being put in practice across Europe. This involves member states implementing national qualifications frameworks and referencing them to the
EQF so that qualifications issued carry a reference to an appropriate EQF level. The EQF has been widely promoted across the European Union and closely related to the European Union’s education and training agenda and initiatives.
13
The EQF is an eight level ’meta-qualifications framework’ which comprises a levels structure based on learning outcomes but without qualification types. It is a European instrument which aims to enable the comparison of qualifications and qualification levels across European countries in order to
9 European Training Foundation Global national qualifications framework inventory 2013 page 10
10 ibid page 9
11 CEDEFOP Briefing Note Qualifications frameworks in Europe: modernising education and training November 2011
12 CEDEFOP Briefing Note Shaping lifelong learning: making the most of European tools and principles December 2011
13 http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/eqf_en.htm
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 5 | P a g e

encourage mobility and lifelong learning. The EQF’s strategic objectives include making lifelong learning a reality in education and training systems and improving the mobility of citizens throughout
Europe. It is designed to accommodate all types and levels of qualifications, including those awarded in formal education and training, in schools, higher education, vocational education and training, adult education, as well as following the validation of non-formal and informal learning.
14
For European citizens to move freely it is necessary, among other things, that their qualifications are easily understood and recognised throughout Europe, whether they pursue further learning in another institution in another country or seek employment abroad.
15
The development of NQFs in Europe has been remarkable, with 24 countries having developed
NQFs. All countries use a learning outcomes approach, the majority have adopted an 8-level framework structure and a further 15 countries are in various stages of development. Sixteen countries have successfully referenced their qualifications frameworks to the EQF by the end of
2012.
16 Their referencing reports have been published and are available on the EQF website.
The EQF initiative is closely related to the Qualifications Framework for the European Higher
Education Area (FQ-EHEA), commonly referred to as the Bologna Framework. The Bologna process was initiated in 1999 and approved by Higher education Ministers in Bergen in 2005. To date, 47
European countries are signatories to the FQ-EHEA. The rationale of the Bologna Framework was to enable international transparency and recognition of higher education qualifications and to support international mobility of learners and graduates. The Bologna Framework consists of three cycles of higher education: Bachelor Degree, Masters Degree and Doctoral Degree. Each is described by internationally accepted descriptors. The two meta-qualifications frameworks are compatible and their implementation is coordinated. Several countries have or are combining referencing of the NQFs with both the EQF and FQ-EHEA in a single report.
A key characteristic of the European region is that there are two levels of frameworks: the national qualifications framework and the European meta-frameworks. Countries reference their NQFs or systems to either/or both frameworks according to a set of commonly agreed criteria. Some
European countries have separate NQFs for vocational education and training and higher education.
2.2.1 EQF structure
The EQF is a learning outcomes-based qualifications framework comprised of levels and qualification types.
The EQF has eight levels, each defined by learning outcomes using common domains and dimensions of progression. Knowledge (factual and/or theoretical), skills (cognitive and practical) and competencies (responsibility and autonomy) describe what a graduate at a particular level is expected to know, do and act. The levels structure is based on complexity, with level 1 the least complex and level 8 the most complex. Almost all 36 countries participating in the EQF have finalised their NQFs on the basis of learning outcomes.
17
The structure of the EQF and the QF EHEA are consistent with other mature national qualifications frameworks around the world.
14 Evaluation of the implementation of the EQF recommendation Final report 17 October 2013
15 Editorial, EQF Newsletter, July 2010
16 European Training Foundation Global national qualifications frameworks inventory 2013 page 43
17 CEDEFOP Working Paper 9 Analysis and overview of NQF level descriptors in European countries 2013
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 6 | P a g e

2.2.2 Other tools
The EQF is supported by a range of common tools and processes. These include:
 European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education
Area
 European quality assurance reference framework for VET (EQAVET)
 Europass and its components such as the Diploma and the Certificate Supplements
 European credit systems for VET and higher education (ECVET and ECTIS)
 Principles and guidelines for identifying and validating non-formal and informal learning
 Principles for lifelong guidance and counselling
 European Skills, Competencies and Occupations (ESCO)
The AQF is the national policy for regulated qualifications in Australian education and training. It incorporates the qualifications from each education and training sector into a single comprehensive national qualifications framework. The AQF was first introduced in 1995 to underpin the national system of qualifications in Australia encompassing higher education, vocational education and training and schools.
Objectives of the AQF
The objectives of the AQF are to provide a contemporary and flexible framework that:
 accommodates the diversity of purposes of Australian education and training now and into the
 future contributes to national economic performance by supporting contemporary, relevant and
 nationally consistent qualification outcomes which build confidence in qualifications supports the development and maintenance of pathways which provide access to qualifications and assist people to move easily and readily between different education and training sectors and between those sectors and the labour market
 supports individuals’ lifelong learning goals by providing the basis for individuals to progress through education and training and gain recognition for their prior learning and experiences
 underpins national regulatory and quality assurance arrangements for education and training
 supports and enhances the national and international mobility of graduates and workers through increased recognition of the value and comparability of Australian qualifications
 enables the alignment of the AQF with international qualifications frameworks
In Australia, education and training is a shared responsibility of all Commonwealth, State and
Territory governments. Education, training and employment ministers collectively own and are responsible for the AQF.
2.3.1 AQF learning outcomes
The organising framework for the AQF is a taxonomic structure of levels and qualification types each of which is defined by a taxonomy of learning outcomes. The taxonomic approach is designed to enable consistency in the way in which qualifications are described as well as clarity about the differences and relationships between qualification types.
The AQF defines learning outcomes as the expression of the set of knowledge, skills and the application of the knowledge and skills a person has acquired and is able to demonstrate as a result
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 7 | P a g e

of learning. The taxonomy consists of knowledge that refers to what a graduate knows and understands, described in terms of depth, breadth, kinds of knowledge and complexity; skills that refers to what a graduate can do, described in terms of kinds and complexity and include cognitive skills, technical skills, communication skills, creative skills, interpersonal skills and generic skills; and application of knowledge and/or skills that refers to how a graduate applies knowledge and skills in context and in terms of autonomy, responsibility and accountability.
2.3.2 AQF levels
As with other NQFs, AQF levels and the AQF levels criteria are an indication of the relative complexity and/or depth of achievement and the autonomy required to demonstrate that achievement. AQF level 1 has the lowest complexity and AQF level 10 has the highest complexity.
The AQF level summaries are statements of the typical achievement of graduates who have been awarded a qualification at a certain level in the AQF.
2.3.3 AQF qualification types
‘AQF qualification types’ is the nomenclature used to describe each discipline free category of AQF qualifications. Each qualification type is defined by a descriptor expressed as learning outcomes.
There are 14 qualification types from across all education and training sectors and each, with the exception of the Senior Secondary Certificate of Education, is located at one of the 10 AQF levels.
AQF qualifications link with each other in a range of learning pathways between schools, VET and higher education and education and work as an individual’s learning and career ambitions require. The AQF provides for flexible, transparent and systematic learning pathways and to the removal of boundaries between educational sectors.
Verification of AQF qualifications and the organisations authorised to issue them is through the AQF
Register.
2.3.4 Other tools
The AQF is supported by a range of common tools, policies and processes. These include:
 Australian education and training sector standards and quality assurance frameworks that are put into effect through the operations of the various education and training quality assurance agencies 18
 policy requirements for issuing AQF qualifications
 policy requirements for credit, qualification linkages and student pathways
 policy requirements for the registers of:
- organisations authorised to accredit AQF qualifications
- organisations authorised to issue AQF qualifications
- AQF qualifications and qualification pathways
 policy requirements for the addition or removal of qualification types in the AQF, and
 common definitions of the terminology used in the policy
 Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations that relates occupations to qualifications and skill levels
18 The school sector and qualifications are quality assured through the various state and territory statutory bodies; VET qualifications and their providers by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) or for local providers in Victoria and
West Australia, respectively the VRQA, WATAC; higher education qualifications and their providers: Tertiary Education
Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA)
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 8 | P a g e

Table 2 below 19 summarises the comparison of the key features of the EQF and the AQF.
Scope
Geographical scope
Range
EQF regional
European Union comprehensive – lifelong learning
AQF national
Australia comprehensive - all qualifications
Sectors included
Origins and development
Governance
Learning outcomes
Levels
Qualification types
Use of volume indicators or credit all sectors and potentially lifelong learning derived from EU policy on lifelong learning. EQF introduced 2005; adopted 2008
EQF Advisory Group
European Commission (DG EAC) learning outcomes described in terms of knowledge, skills and competence
8 levels level descriptors defined on the basis of learning outcomes no qualification types defined school, vocational education and training, higher education
AQF establish 1995 building on previous frameworks; 2008-2010 AQF reviewed; approved by Ministers March
2011; 2 nd edition January 2013
AQF Council, under the authority of ministers, is the responsible and representative body for AQF learning outcomes described in terms of knowledge, skills and the application of knowledge and skills
10 levels level attributes and criteria defined on the basis of learning outcomes
14 qualification types defined on the basis of learning outcomes; include purpose statement and volume of learning volume of learning defined for each qualification type
Articulation and progression
Framework relationship to the labour market no definitions of credit or volume
Two European credit systems being implemented: ECTS and ECVET but
EQF does not require the use of credit principles and guidelines for identifying and validating non-formal and informal learning purpose of the EQF is to increase mobility of labour
AQF Qualifications Pathways Policy specifies the inclusion of credit and articulation for all types of learning
Quality assurance
Existing comparisons or alignments
EQF referencing criteria require national systems to show that their QA arrangements are consistent with relevant European principles and guidelines
Internally, EQF quality assured through the EQF-AG
20 countries referenced against the
EQF
47 countries participating in the
Bologna process
AQF objective to contribute to national economic performance and to assist people to move easily and readily between different education and training sectors and between those sectors and the labour market
AQF component of the quality assurance systems in each education and training sector through the various legislative instruments
Internally, AQF quality assured through the AQF Council and its reporting responsibilities to Ministers of
Education and Training no formal alignments; alignment with
NZQF in progress; large body of evidence of international comparison of specific Australian qualifications
19 drawn from the findings of the 2011 Joint EU-Australia study and initial work by Edwin Murnagh
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 9 | P a g e

3
As outlined in sections 1 and 2, international comparability of qualifications is important in both
Europe and Australia and is articulated through the objectives and policies of both qualifications frameworks. The support of both the European Commission and the Australian Government is a key strength of the current EQF-AQF alignment project.
The Joint EU-Australia Study on the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of workers and learners states that, in both Europe and Australia, mechanisms are required to assist in qualifications recognition and that ‘qualifications frameworks are an instrument that has a role to play in the recognition process’, particularly through the recognition of equivalences in levels across frameworks.
20 Key factors identified in the report are that qualifications frameworks provide a means for ensuring that there was information about, and understanding and trust in, the different qualifications systems and structures including quality assurance arrangements; that there were structures and tools in place to enable coherent recognition strategies; and easy access to databases and registers of qualifications.
The analysis undertaken in study ‘suggests that a relationship between the EQF and the AQF would add value for both framework communities and the option of doing nothing and allowing potentially confusing informal relativities to develop is not in the interests of either region.’ 21
The report argues that ‘there is an advantage to establishing some kind of formal relationship’ between the EQF and the AQF. In brief that:
 the AQF would benefit from being associated with a framework community (the EQF) that is a significant trading partner
 the EQF would benefit from being associated with the AQF as a long standing and high status national qualifications framework
 the AQF is influential in the Asia-Pacific region at a national and regional level, (similarly the
EQF is influential in the European region)
 recognition of qualifications is important for the large mobile student and worker populations in Australia to support efficient recognition of qualifications and experience leading to qualifications
 the establishment of formal linkages will avoid informal linkages being developed which could lead to confusion.
22
The benefits of alignment between the AQF and national or transnational qualifications are at several levels. These range from economic benefits at a national or regional level to benefits for individuals.
The benefits include: a.
assisting the effectiveness of two significant areas of public policy reliant upon qualifications recognition, namely international education and immigration 23
20 Joint EU-Australia study: Study on the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of workers and learners
June 2011 page 31
21 ibid page 9
22 ibid pages 75-76. An example of good practice is the mapping of qualifications at the Australian National University
23 against EQF levels
The data reveals a trend towards an increasing trend in European students undertaking further study in Australia and for highly-qualified workers in both the immigrant and emigrant cohorts in Australia. This trend emphasises the importance of qualifications in the Australian immigration and emigration processes and, consequently, the importance of systemic qualifications recognition informed by sound understanding of the educational context, including the Australian and
European qualifications frameworks, which will assist recognition authorities in determining comparability of European qualifications in Australia.
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 10 | P a g e

 providing a systematic basis for improving mutual trust and the recognition of qualifications between nations or within regions.
24 Alignment of the AQF with other qualifications frameworks is consistent with the intended outcomes of Australia’s international agreements, complements their purpose and will further the objective of labour mobility as well as enhance Australia’s recognition processes.
 increasing understanding and knowledge of the value of overseas qualifications undertaken by both Australians and Europeans who, on the basis of those qualifications, seek to compete in the Australian or international labour market and/or undertake further study in either Australia or Europe
 facilitating transparency and reliability of information about qualifications and the qualifications framework in each nation or region
 increasing international understanding, comparability, confidence and recognition of qualifications for both study and employment b.
eliminating unofficial referencing which could undermine confidence in qualifications and the frameworks generally c.
contributing to the credibility and robustness of each nation’s or region’s qualifications systems, including knowledge and understanding of the various quality assurance systems and processes supporting the qualifications frameworks d.
improving employers’ understanding of qualifications to assist with skills supply, and e.
providing a comparative benchmark for the AQF.
4 Challenges of alignment
The challenges and risks of an alignment outcome between the EQF and the AQF are at two levels.
Firstly, the challenges faced by the technical alignment process and secondly, those that may arise for each community as a result of the outcomes. This section identifies the issues that need to be taken into account but does not propose solutions which will be a component of the final project report.
The AQF Council identifies a set of overarching principles that need to be taken into account when considering any alignment opportunities.
25 These reflect some of the challenges that need to be considered in the alignment approach:
 identifying and documenting the demonstrable benefit to Australia
 ensuring alignment between the AQF and national or regional qualifications frameworks will enhance any existing relationships and arrangements between these nations or regions.
 managing expectations that the AQF will not be adapted to suit another nation’s or region’s requirements.
 managing expectations about whether alignment of national or regional qualifications frameworks with the AQF may result in the assumption of automatic recognition of the nation’s or region’s qualifications as AQF qualifications.
 identifying processes if an alignment opportunity is presented where the nation or region does not yet have a formal national or regional qualifications framework and how the national or regional qualifications system would be used for alignment of qualifications.
24 Australia, as a signatory to the Lisbon Convention, is committed to the central principle of fair and transparent recognition processes for qualifications in the higher education sector. Australia is also a signatory to the UNESCO
Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education, also known as the Tokyo Convention, signed in 2012. Through multilateral agreements reached as a member of the Asia Pacific Economic Community,
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, East Asia Summit and Asia Europe Ministers, Australia is committed to the policy objectives related to building labour mobility through the recognition of qualifications which are underpinned by the trust established with qualifications frameworks and quality assurance of the qualifications within them, particularly at a national level.
25 AQF Council AQF Second Edition January 2013 page 108
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 11 | P a g e

The Joint EU-Australia study highlights that while there may be ‘a significant degree in the conceptual basis, definitions of terminology and general approaches to the recognition of learning achievement
… the context in which they are used (may highlight) major differences that must be taken into account’. These include: 26
 The AQF relates to one country; the EQF relates to many countries with very different governing arrangements, different education traditions and different languages
 The AQF defines qualifications types and is a framework to which Australian qualifications are directly related; EQF is a meta-framework to which national systems can be referenced
– no qualifications are directly referenced to the EQF. This will mean that any alignment will be only between the levels of each framework. Technical issues that may require consideration during the alignment process is how frameworks with a different structure such as differing numbers of levels can be aligned.
27
 The AQF defines the volume of learning outcomes associated with qualifications types; the
EQF has no volume metric
 The uses of the frameworks are fundamentally different and are a response to the national and international settings in which they have been developed. For example, the AQF relates to a labour market with controlled recruitment from abroad where immigration policy is designed to facilitate the Australian economy and the AQF is a key tool in qualifications recognition; the EQF relates to a single labour market in a group of countries where there is free migration. These different policy contexts including the licensing of trades will require application of mitigation strategies of this risk.
 The differences in the ways the quality of qualifications is assured in Australia and in EU
Member States: for the AQF there is limited need for an extensive quality assurance that operates at the level of the AQF since the qualifications themselves are regulated at the level of the sector of their application; in Europe national systems vary considerably in terms of the focus of quality assurance and it is necessary to have tools that make these systems more comparable (such as EQAVET and the standards for quality in higher education)
 The AQF is the NQF for Australia; in Europe the individual country NQF is the main point of reference for citizens and not the EQF.
A key challenge that needs to be considered is possible assumptions of European Member States regarding the status of their referencing with the EQF and the consequent relationship with the AQF following alignment. The issue concerns whether alignment of their NQF with the EQF automatically means alignment with the AQF.
Preliminary investigation indicates that the structure and content of the EQF is comparable with the
AQF. Both comprise level structures described by taxonomies of learning outcomes and authoritative national or regional quality assurance systems. This provides a sound footing for a detailed technical comparison of the Qualifications Frameworks.
The Joint EU-Australia study clearly signals the European Commission’s interest in the alignment of the EQF with the AQF; the AQF Council in turn has recommended the project. There are also strong diplomatic, labour market and trade ties between the two countries and formal alignment is consistent with Australia’s international obligations.
26 Joint EU-Australia Study on the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of workers and learners June
2011 pages 74-75
27 EQF and New Zealand referencing reports indicate that this is not an issue. The New Zealand/Irish referencing report indicates that conversely NQFs with the same number of levels does not necessarily lead to capability of all levels.
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 12 | P a g e

The research underpinning the study documents a sound evidential basis for the feasibility of alignment. The study proposes the establishment of a ‘Qualifications Framework Accord’ but how the results of the alignment project are titled will be the subject of the negotiations between the
EQF and AQF.
The study concluded 28 that:
 ‘There are significant potential gains for both Europe and Australia in developing an appropriate relationship, possible termed a ‘Qualifications Framework Accord’ between EQF and AQF
 The option of doing nothing and allowing potentially confusing informal relativities to develop is not in the interests of either region
 The establishment of a linkage along the lines of a Qualifications Framework Accord involving these frameworks is feasible
 The Qualifications Framework Accord would be a signal of the intention to develop a zone of trust as the EQF project moves to completion and the AQF’s new system of levels, titles and qualifications becomes embedded in national practice.’
The formal alignment of the AQF with the EQF has the potential to increase efficiency in meeting the demand for credible and reliable qualifications recognition outcomes that arises from increasing international student and worker mobility. The outcomes will be consistent and reliable reference points for qualifications recognition decision-making for these purposes and reduce the emergence of informal and potentially inconsistent relativities.
Given the extent of the cooperation between Australia and the EU at all levels and the similarities in the respective qualifications frameworks, alignment is likely to be a relatively smooth process. There are real benefits of alignment for both Europe and Australia and while challenges and risks are presented by the project, these are unlikely to be impediments and can be readily addressed through the course of the project.
In conclusion it is worth noting that:
NQFs can be the key to understanding the types of learning that are recognised in a country, how these are valued and how the qualifications system works to award these qualifications.
Thus NQFs have the potential to lead to increased international understanding of national qualifications systems… (In addition) governments are also interested to know if the levels of qualifications achievements in the country are comparable to those in other countries, competitiveness of economies may depend on good comparisons.
29
28 Joint EU-Australia Study on the (potential) role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility of workers and learners June
2011 page 77. Note: the revised AQF was approved following publication of the Study and now (2014) embedded across the education and training system.
29 Jens Bjornavold and Mike Coles Added value of national qualifications frameworks in implementing the EQF 2010 pages 22-23
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 13 | P a g e

The second EU-Australia Education & Training Policy Dialogue took place in Brussels (Belgium) on
15 December 2010. The Dialogue was organised by the European Commission's Directorate
General for Education and Culture (DG EAC) and by the Australian Department for Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). It was co-chaired by Mr Jordi Curell, DG EAC,
Director for Higher Education and International Affairs, and Ms Margaret Pearce, DEEWR, Minister-
Counsellor.
The purpose of the EU-Australia Education & Training Policy Dialogue is to exchange views on common challenges, share experiences and best practices in selected policy areas and decide on appropriate joint follow-up actions. The agenda of this meeting focused in particular on qualifications frameworks, their crucial role in lifelong learning, facilitating recognition and mobility as well as assuring quality.
The Policy Dialogue was organised in the framework of the 2007 Joint Declaration on Co-operation in Education and Training and the EU-Australia Partnership Framework, most recently updated in
2009. It was preceded by a two-day International Peer Learning Activity on Qualifications
Frameworks aiming at triggering mutual learning from national and transnational developments and exploring how qualifications frameworks can be developed into efficient instruments for international cooperation – in particular facilitating the mobility of learners and workers.
Jordi Curell, Director for Higher Education and International Affairs at the European Commission’s
Directorate-General for Education and Culture, and Ms Margaret Pearce, Minister-Counsellor at the
Australian Department for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, stated:
The second EU-Australia Education and Training Policy Dialogue provided an excellent opportunity to broaden and deepen the understanding and the scope of our bilateral co-operation in education and training. We are excited to see our academic co-operation through bilateral curriculum development and exchange projects consolidate in terms of number of projects financed and people exchanged. We also very much welcome the progress made since we met in March 2009 in Melbourne discussing higher education reforms and modernisation agendas. We face similar challenges in the EU and in Australia in terms of transnational transparency, comparability and recognition of citizens’ qualifications expressed in learning outcomes. Qualifications Frameworks have a central role in promoting permeability, lifelong learning and mobility within and throughout qualifications systems. Aligning these systems is not a remote academic exercise, but offers concrete benefits (i) to citizens as it promotes their seamless progression and smooth mobility and (ii) to modern knowledge-based societies as they prosper thanks to a more highly skilled and versatile workforce.
In light of the inspiring discussion we had at today’s Policy Dialogue, we agree on a number of key joint actions to underpin our co-operation and to support mutually beneficial strategic outcomes. We are committed to continue and intensify our dialogue on a regular basis and therefore look forward to convening again in April 2011 in Sydney. Our discussions will then focus on the area of early childhood education and care.
In addition to representatives from the European Commission and the Australian Department of
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the following experts participated in the 2010
Policy Dialogue: Hon John Dawkins AO and Ms Ann Doolette (Australian Qualifications Framework
Council), Mr Andrew Smith (Swinburne College), Prof. Marnie Hughes-Warrington (Monash
University), Ms Megan Lilly (Australian Industry Group), Mr Edwin Mernagh (independent expert for
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 14 | P a g e

international qualifications systems), Mr Jens Bjørnåvold and Ms Slava Pevec Grm (Cedefop) as well as Mr Arjen Deij and Ms Marleen Voordekkers (European Training Foundation).
Conclusions and Follow-up actions
1. Bilateral Agreement in Education and Training
In light of the existing productive relationship, the parties agree to enter into preliminary discussions on a bilateral agreement in education and training.
2. Joint EU-Australia Study on Qualifications Frameworks in supporting mobility of
workers and learners
The parties will launch, before the end of the year, a joint comprehensive study exploring the mobility of learners and workers as well as the role of qualifications frameworks in supporting mobility. The study will explore if, and how, qualifications frameworks can serve as instruments for pursuing closer international cooperation in the field of qualifications’ transparency and recognition and in particular how the AQF might relate to the EQF and to European NQFs and how this might affect mobility.
3. Joint EU-Australia Tuning project
DG EAC and DEEWR are looking forward to the results of the pilot Tuning Australia project launched as a follow-up to the 2009 Policy Dialogue. This joint project is investigating the alignment of academic standards and reference points in the EU and Australia with a view to facilitating the recognition of qualifications and mobility of people. First results should be presented at the 2011 Policy Dialogue in Sydney.
4. Joint expert seminar
A joint expert seminar on mobility and lifelong learning will be organised in Europe or Australia to present the results of, and to discuss potential follow up actions to, the joint qualifications frameworks study and the joint Tuning project.
5. Bilateral academic co-operation projects
The parties welcome the launch of five new bilateral projects under the 7th joint call for proposals since 2002. These new projects involve 34 Australian and European universities and training institutions and will allow for the mobility of more than 280 students and 100 teachers for learning and teaching purposes. The parties are committed to continue financing bilateral academic co operation projects and agree to develop a strategy for an 8th round which is likely to focus on joint/double degrees.
6. Information exchanges
The parties agree to continue information exchanges on education and training, including the
Bologna and Copenhagen processes in respect of higher education and vocational education and training. In particular, the parties will explore opportunities to exchange information on experiences and practices in the development of qualifications frameworks and quality assurance.
7. Alumni Association
The parties welcome the creation and first successful year of the OCEANS Network. DG EAC and DEEWR agree to further disseminate information about, and support the activities of, the alumni association as its members are prime ambassadors of ourbilateral relationship.
8. Enhanced participation of Australia in the EU University- Business Forum
The next EU University-Business Forum will take place from 22 to 23 March 2011 in Brussels and will focus on close cooperation between Higher Education and the world of work from different perspectives and around different issues. The European Commission invites Australia to actively participate with relevant stakeholders in this Forum.
Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 15 | P a g e

Strengths, benefits and challenges of alignment between the AQF and the EQF: an Australian view 16 | P a g e