Skills Impact

Response:

Tripartite approach
Skills Impact supports a tripartite approach to the design of Jobs & Skills Australia (JSA). Further consideration could be given to the involvement of “all levels of government” (p9, Discussion Paper (p9 DP)), including local and regional government structures. This would include governance-based structures in communities or via Land Councils. These structures are at the heart of local economies which are jobs and skills reliant and may provide valuable input given the theme of “granular data and analysis to inform workforce planning and funding decisions at state and regional levels, and to inform place-based solutions”. (p6 DP)

In the same way, approaches that include “education and training providers” (p9 DP) may also need to include informal and in-workplace training This is particularly relevant given growth in informal online learning programs provided now by some of the largest corporations in the world and recognised by government.

JSA as a Collaborative Body

A design that promotes JSA as a collaborative body performing roles that provide leadership to, and integration of, the skills system is suggested. Placing more emphasis on leading efficiently and harnessing insights from across the system would enable JSA to avoid the issues that arise from undertaking and performing (and often duplicating) functions that other stakeholders will provide such as the Jobs and Skills Councils. As was noted by the AISC, “A critical lesson has been that all stakeholders need to work collaboratively and consult early and effectively to reach good outcomes. In addition, clear objectives, responsibilities, and accountabilities are essential” (AISC, Reflections & Opportunities, p2).

Ideally, the existing and newly established structures within the broad Australian Skills system will be harnessed to maximise the benefits the system can bring to the Australian public (see more under Q4 of this response). JSA would then be free to focus on its critical role: “The Government is committed to ensuring Jobs and Skills Australia is a trusted source of advice, delivering the evidence, research, and analysis that drives governments policy, programs, and investment, business and industry planning, and informs the choices Australians make about their education, training and employment.” (p3 DP, emphasis added)

The current design as proposed could lead JSA to become a body undertaking the bulk of its work in isolation from work being done elsewhere. That would result in repeating the recent past weaknesses of the National Skills Commission. In most situations, JSA does not need to be a direct service provider, or a body dedicated to projects and inquiries. A more collaborative approach can be taken, harnessing the work of:
•	State and Territory Training Authorities
•	Federal, State and Territory government departments working with industries within JSA coverage 
•	The Australian Bureau of Statistics (a key body for collaboration given the requirements around definitions and granularity of data, and the need for data at regional and local levels)
•	State and Territory Industry Training Advisory Bodies (ITABs)
•	Local government and equivalent bodies
•	Economic development and infrastructure bodies (national and local)
•	Research bodies, including the NCVER, AVETRA, CRC, RDCs, Universities, peak bodies, and private researchers
•	Jobs and Skills Councils
•	Education and training regulators and standards bodies
•	Leading representative bodies for educators, trainers and career advisers, and those involved in apprenticeship and traineeship placements

JSA will already have direct access to industry, employer bodies and unions, through the Jobs and Skills Councils and the JSA Advisory body and there is no need to duplicate this function via JSA going directly to industry to consult on specific issues.

The Broad Skills System
We note that the Discussion Paper recognises the need for further consideration of “Jobs and Skills Australia’s role as an advisory body and positioning within the broader skills system” (p6 DP). This will require an understanding of what the “broader skills system is” or where the positioning lies. 

At the heart of Australia’s skills system are employers and employees. Employers create jobs and opportunities for learning and practicing skills while employees contribute effort, skills, and learning. Together this represents the heart of an industry led Skills System and they drive the Australian economy, supported by governments. Australia has broad social, economic and productivity goals, and the Skills System plays its role in this. In designing JSA, there is a need to keep in mind that its primary purpose is to serve the needs of the Skills System as described above and not just to meet the needs of the government funded education and training sectors.

To understand the scope of this issue, consider the number of hours worked by workers in industry each and every year and the number of hours spent learning on the job. Assuming that every employee, as they go about their daily tasks, spends at a minimum 5% of their time learning in workplaces (i.e. the broader Skills System as mentioned above), that is a large amount of skill acquisition.  This industry provided learning environment, outside of any VET or education system, provides many more hours of training than the formal training system. To limit the role of JSA to formal training and education only provided by RTOs and Universities is to miss a great opportunity to support industry in their efforts to skill workers, when the vast majority of skills are learnt on the job both through practice and by colleagues and supervisors demonstrating and providing feedback to learners in the workplace.

Currently, the only feasible way for a person to gain a VET qualification is by enrolling in a course and completing the curriculum associated with that VET offered course, even if a person has already learnt the skills in the workplace. Australia now consists of a nation of workers with the majority holding reasonable skills, learnt on the job, but without a qualification and these workers are being considered as unskilled. They are not, they are just unqualified. I.e., unqualified is unskilled in most research reports and this is a gross misrepresentation of Australia’s skill base. The process of gaining the qualification to match their learnt skills is too difficult under the current rules and regulations and presents a huge barrier to upskilling and reskilling. Recognition of current competency can be done reasonably easily on the job with VET sector support as piloted in many different situations and industries, but this is currently very difficult to do and not at all viable for RTOs to do or even help with, within the framework of the current VET system, its regulations and its regulator.

The first theme identified in the Discussion Paper relates to state and territory governments as purchasers of training, however they are not only (or even primarily) purchasers of training as a sole product. Along with federal, local and regional government, they are financiers (funders) of state, territory and regional economies, and supporters and regulators of social systems. We acknowledge the central role of state and territory governments in the skills system, but as supporters of a tripartite (in reality, multilateral) system. 

The broad remit and importance of JSA requires support that provides broader input and skills, beyond one commonwealth department, a department that directly funds elements of the sector, but not to the same extent of state and territory governments (excluding the role that the Commonwealth plays in national skill agreements with the states and territories). As the skills system is much broader than education and training, and as states and territories play important roles within it, we would question why support for JSA would only come from a section within one federal government department, and one which could be perceived to have a potential conflict of interest. In the past, establishing a body within one department made administrative and efficiency sense, but with work from home, remote working and collaborative approaches, this is no longer a key factor in good design. 

Effective design of JSA would be supported by a variety of staff who may come from the wide variety of federal, state and territory government departments, especially those that work directly with industry, as well as the ABS, NCVER, research bodies and other organisations within the Skills System. If JSA is established as a collaborative body rather than using a model similar to that used by the Productivity Commission, establishment and ongoing costs could be minimised. 

Governance Model or Management Model?
In the current design, there is a capacity for Deputy Commissioners who can be appointed or brought in temporarily for projects. It is difficult to tell from the paper whether this is intended to be a governance model (which could lead to more collaborative approaches) or whether this is a management model, which is likely to lead to more isolated product development in isolation from the rest of the system. 

Response:

In developing the principles of JSA, we believe attention should be given to the many factors outlined in the discussion paper, along with the consideration that effective Skills System leadership can prevent fractures and disparity between the policies and priorities of the Skills Ministers and the other parts of the system. 

Skills Impact would suggest consideration of the following when establishing the principles:

•	JSA to primarily act as a tripartite, leading advisory body across the whole skills system, ensuring that Skills Ministers have access to the evidence-base and diversity of viewpoints to make policy and priority decisions 
•	JSA to be able to focus on its leadership roles and not be required to undertake roles that may divert it toward becoming a quasi-regulator, arbiter, or controller of the skills system
•	JSA to operate through networks, ensuring it is able to harness existing networks without impacting their effectiveness, and ensure that it has access to sufficient networks, directly and indirectly, to be able to take advantage of the power of diversity
•	JSA to lead the way in creating an environment of trust and respect throughout the skills system with a clear focus on shared visions, values and broad social and economic benefits
•	JSA to consider the benefits of taking framework approaches which allow diversity of approaches and multiple solutions/responses, rather than rely upon rules and standards
•	The roles of JSA do not have to result in the provision of answers or single recommendations, especially as national approaches rarely meet the needs of all local segments of Australia: instead, they can focus on providing the benefits of a variety of approaches and solutions for the Skills Ministers to make policy and priority decisions, and for other bodies to develop approaches that may suit states, regions, places, groups of learners or industries 
•	JSA to work collaboratively and strive to minimise duplication, while providing access to other bodies within the system to needed resources and evidence
•	JSA to play an active role in the coordination of the federal department, and state and territory training authorities, to ensure a tripartite approach is brought to discussions and the development of agreements, policy positions and standards.

One consideration for the development of the principles is to overcome the historic approach that resulted in vested interests and disagreements leading to conflicts and disputes which are seen to require a single resolution at a national level, in recent times via the AISC. The design of JSCs appears to address this issue with the intent to deal with dispute resolution at operational levels as recommended by the AISC. A role of JSA could be to shine a spotlight on this approach, which will not only add transparency to such matters, but may also lead to innovative approaches to dispute resolution in the operation of the skills system. 

For example, there has been long-running concern about the standards relating to micro-credentials (specifically Skill Sets) in the Training Package Operating Framework. On one hand, it is a priority of the Skills Ministers to improve the use of micro-credentials, and if this is incorporated into a reading of the Standards, it can be argued that Skills Sets can be developed for upskilling and reskilling, but if they are going to be incorporated into a qualification, certain conditions must be met. Alternatively, the Skills Ministers have a priority for Australian competitiveness to improve through the completion of more qualifications, and if this is incorporated into a reading of the standards, then whatever the purpose of a skill set, they can only be created if all units in a Skill Set enable the learner to obtain a full qualification.

This has been seen as a dispute requiring resolution by the bodies involved, and has been the subject of negotiations, recording of disagreements and even arbitrative processes, which take place at implementation rather than policy level. However, the standards are driven by the policies and priorities of the Skills Ministers, who (quite rightly) are not part of detailed implementation. JSA may be able to play a role of bringing these issues to the attention of the Skills Ministers, presenting tripartite views and options, and providing the ministers with the information to help them decide approaches at policy and priority level. 

Response:

Where JSA may be able to contribute to engagement outside of any current networks is with disadvantaged stakeholders, who traditionally and currently have not been well-served by the system. This is often due to lack of resources but is also a result of the structural approaches that mean engagement becomes a competition for influence, instead of a collaboration harnessing diversity. In this context, structurally the system has struggled for many years to deal with the issues of thin markets, local needs (especially in rural and remote Australia) and learners who are from outside of mainstream, metropolitan channels, which may provide a starting point for JSA to broaden its engagement. 

Skills Impact suggests that JSA will need to adopt a network approach to engagement and utilise the existing networks in the system. Currently, the system is beset by engagement requirements that are duplicative, unnecessary and extremely wearing and tiring for stakeholders. It is critical to remember that stakeholders are generally being asked to contribute voluntarily to the system, and while this may bring broad national advantages, the advantages to the individuals being asked to contribute is minimal. In addition, we are apparently living in a world of information and exchange overload, yet we continue to contribute to this problem to the detriment of our stakeholders.

While engagement is absolutely crucial and central to the Australian Skills System, duplicative engagement is counterproductive. For a tripartite approach to be effective, there is a requirement to trust and respect the channels provided by the tripartite bodies (and similarly, these bodies must commit to open sharing of the products of networks). 

If JSA uses the existing and recently established networks in the system, including the new JSCs, it will not only reduce duplication of work, but also lead to greater success of the engagement of the partner bodies, which will be seen as an effective avenue of information and intelligence to JSA. 

The workplan of JSA would best be based on the advice and inputs of the existing networks, including the JSCs, as outlined in our response to question 1. 

Response:

This question is based on a design which emphasises the need for JSA to be a service provider and consulting directly with stakeholders rather than a collaborative body working with other bodies that already consult with stakeholders. Given the existing structures in the Australian Skills System, JSA should rarely, if ever, have to build engagement for major studies, as most of these can be undertaken within other parts of the Skills System and brought together by JSA. Engaging with a number of different partners in the skills system to deliver each of these studies will result in diversity of views and better outcomes.

Recognising that the Skills Ministers will have critical priorities that will require service delivery from JSA, engagement should still be built on the basis of collaboration and utilisation of existing resources, networks and channels. 

Given that engagement is a function of effectiveness and achievement, stakeholders will always engage more closely with organisations that demonstrate their value to them. In this regard, approaches can be taken to the development of products that go beyond the policy and priority requirements of the ministers, and that aid effective business planning by industry through employers and unions. The advisory body can play an important role in planning phases that will help JSA facilitate these outcomes. 
 

Response:

1.	Incorporating risk as a critical factor in describing skills
Recently, significant work has been undertaken to identify commonalities in skills being offered within the VET system, in an effort to reduce duplication. Some of this work has been based on utilising very simple forms of Artificial Intelligence, however these efforts are generally better described as very basic textual analysis using digital technology to improve efficiency. 

In taking this simplistic approach, there is a marked danger to the health and safety of workers and the safety of products for Australian and international consumers due to the failure to recognise that similar skills may have dramatically different profiles depending on the risk factors relating to occupations and applications. Risk transforms skills, and considerations have to be given to a) the nature of risk; b) the level of risk; c) locations and environments of the exercise of the skill and d) whether there is risk to self and/or others, the environment, the product, the reputation of the industry or the workplace.

The skill of digging a hole varies dramatically depending on whether the hole is required for a grave, an irrigation trench, underground powerlines or a mine. To use textual analysis to identify examples of where hole-digging occur and try to combine the training of this as a portable skill is to both court and promote potential disaster. Furthermore, using this example, holes are dug as part of a work function, digging holes has little value in itself, it is what the hole is dug for, i.e., how it is used that provides the context. Therefore, digging holes is not a common skill useful to many industries like the text matching technique may try to show. It is preparation of a grave, repairing an underground powerline, preparing foundations etc in where the value lies. These are not transferable skills. The simple job function is transferable, but this is of little value to industry. It could be argued that people don’t need to be “trained” to dig holes, digging holes is just something that needs to be done by multiple industries as they go about their quite different industry functions.

Skills Impact has used risk to describe this weakness in current approaches using AI to try to simplify standards by text matching. Others may have better ways of describing the reasons why textual analysis approaches are failing to produce consistent and credible results.

2.	Place-based approaches
Place-based approaches offer the potential for:
•	understanding the synergies associated with cross-industry workforce in regional areas
•	analysis of the factors affecting local workforce attraction and retention in regions/communities
•	consideration of place-based challenges and opportunities in developing workforce development strategies 
•	exploring the concept of ‘regional skills’ as a focus for capabilities development to ensure people have skills transferability across industries and occupations in local areas (rather than creating skills silos), which may have potential to contribute to efforts to retain regional populations and deliver ‘stackable’ credentials for those whose careers do not follow linear pathways.

Widescale workforce shortages indicate the availability of jobs alone is clearly not enough to attract and retain workers. Place, including its infrastructure and liveability, is a huge influence on peoples’ willingness to remain in, or travel to, work locations. For predominately regional industries, workforce attraction and retention cannot be disentangled from regional development. 

There is also a challenge to attract unemployed young people in regional areas (who experience economic precarity and declining participation in education and training), whose needs and expectations are not being met by standard training delivery or industries’ promotional activities (as per the learnings from the Brotherhood of St. Laurence’s AgFutures Project).

This implies we need a more nuanced understanding of the place-based workforce and skills and training needs of different sectors to target and address opportunities and challenges (including shortages) in these areas. We also need a better understanding of the variables that impact on the supply of, and demand for, a skilled workforce.


3.	Regional Workforce Planning Tools

Regional Workforce Planning Snapshots could complement the place-based approach of Workforce Planning by providing data on: 
•	the composition of Industry sectors in each region (perhaps based on the coverage of each of the Jobs and Skills Councils)
•	regional employment in each sector
•	regional jobs availability in each sector (including preferred skill level and employment length)
•	seasonality of jobs in each sector
•	projected employment growth in each sector by occupation
•	regional unemployment (including demographics, e.g., Indigenous job seekers)
•	regional RTOs and relevant training package product delivery options
•	state-based funding opportunities for training that apply to employers/learners in the region.

While outside of the immediate technical scope of any one organisation, a tool could be collaboratively developed to present ‘Regional Workforce Planning Snapshots’ (JSA already has access to interactive maps for ‘employment regions’ based on ABS data through work done by the National Skills Commission).

Such a tool could offer opportunities for assessing regional skills needs across industry sectors and:
•	help Jobs and Skills Councils to identify regions in which there is potential to connect training package products with delivery of training ‘on the ground’ and promote longer-term workforce development
•	offer industry stakeholders a resource to assess their skills and training needs in relation to the size and composition of their organisation, and to potentially connect with local supporters and RTOs
•	RTOs and other current and potential training providers could use the tool to identify current and projected training needs (associated with job availability and projected employment growth data) in their region and develop promotional and assessment resources as appropriate, working with other skills bodies in the system
•	offer a resource for job seekers to inform them of the availability of jobs in each region, sector, or season, and to help them plan for having multiple jobs across industries and occupations, as well as the required transferable skills.

This is an ambitious proposition, which at present is beyond the capabilities and resources of the Jobs and Skills Councils or state based ITABs. Collaborative work across JSA, ABS, Local Councils, NCVER, Jobs and Skills Councils and ITABs may be able to achieve this. There are also other initiatives, such as the Australian Government’s Local Jobs Program and Queensland Farmers' Federation’s Workforce Planning, that have developed regional employment resources, but the additional contribution of the proposed tool would be to link jobs needs to skills and training opportunities.

4.	Better access to existing research
Many of the skills bodies in the system, including Jobs and Skills Councils, lack access to important existing research. These sources should be identified, and JSA could play an important role in facilitating access (with appropriate recognition and limitations) so that existing research could be better utilised. 

One example is the plethora of research available from higher education institutions, CRC and RDCs. It would be extremely useful for some skills bodies (including Jobs and Skills Councils) to get access to appropriate online research libraries, such as those available to university students. This would provide access to the latest research and evidence relating to the industry and related to skills, education and training. 

While the NCVER provides access to significant VET specific research, there is more published research on skills and training. Universities have special arrangements with service providers and publishers of research that allows online access for staff, researchers and students. JSA may be able to oversee a reciprocal arrangement where research bodies may get access to the intelligence, data and networks established by bodies such as Jobs and Skills Councils and ITABs, while skills bodies get access to the latest research covering industry, skills and skills development. 

Response:

Skills Impact questions how broad this engagement needs to be, given the multiple other bodies within the skills system that already engage extensively with skills and industry stakeholders. The time and resources for theses stakeholders to engage with the skills system is limited, given that the primary purpose of industry is the productivity, economic development and growth that underlies jobs and skills. If JSA implements an additional engagement burden on industry and other stakeholders, this will further dilute industry intelligence outcomes gathered by  Jobs and Skills Councils which we hope will become the key industry networks that JSA relies upon.

There are established national, state and territory bodies with this direct remit – to undertake broad-based engagement of skills and industry stakeholders. Central to these systems are the Jobs and Skills Councils and the state and territory Industry Training Advisory Bodies. There are other bodies established to undertake engagement for research purposes, including NCVER, CRCs and RDCs. 

A review of the varying systems in place over the last few decades indicates that the system becomes unwieldy, stifled and unresponsive if too many bodies are seeking to undertake wholesale engagement. We would suggest that one of the roles of JSA is to ensure other contributors to the skills system are not hampered by duplication of efforts regarding stakeholder engagement. JSA can assist to hold these bodies accountable for the engagement they undertake and the quality of intelligence, data and evidence they are providing.

Response:

This is dependent on the final design of JSA and the purposes of outreach. While there are many outreach and communication channels, stakeholders will expect that JSA consider their other inputs into the VET system including via Jobs and Skills Councils and information and exchange overload, before undertaking direct outreach.

If the design of the organisation is as a collaborative body, and/or if it incorporates the ability to be supported by staff from multiple organisations instead of from a single section of a department, outreach would stem from those designs. 

Response:

Skills impact’s experience suggests that the challenge is not about the presentation of the data but the collection of, or more accurately the lack of collection, of the range and granularity of data and analysis which is the greater issue, however being able to manipulate the presentation of the data in multiple ways would also be very helpful.

Of particular use to the agribusiness industries are maps, which show the “locations” of data, as well as content. Presenting accurate maps of data on a region-by-region basis would be very helpful. It would be particularly helpful to develop maps that show drifts of work and skills locations, potentially with appropriate calendars to incorporate seasonality. 

Recently JSA noted that enrolment data may be misleading in a regional, rural, and remote context because enrolment data may be reported based on the head office locations of RTOs instead of the actual location of learners and training. Being able to present data in ways that show multiple mapping, such as using a map of enrolment data, a map of learner location and a map of training location (RTOs registered on the National Training Register must record all locations of delivery) may help to either identify issues with the data or present more accurate pictures. There is certainly anecdotal evidence, along with data concerning accommodation, demographics and employment, which suggest that younger learners are drifting towards metropolitan locations for training and work opportunities, but this is an arguable issue with variability on a region-by-region basis.

The website approach used by the former National Skills Commission was based on a presentation style that was reader friendly, but not very useful at all for organisations looking to actually work with the data and to use it for planning or response purposes. 

Current Data Limitations
Recognising the limitations of publicly available data and information provides the opportunity to identify areas that JSA may address in their investigations. Known limitations must also temper ambitions for the immediate comprehensiveness, accuracy and timeliness of Workforce Planning functions. 
The range of observations below are based on working with data over the past few years. Skills Impact hopes that they will enable JSA to maximise their data collection program.

Staffing and resources
No organisation within the current skills system has direct access to the resources and abilities of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and other quantitative data bodies, such as CRCs and universities, especially regarding the conduct and analysis of widescale data collection. Current workforce planning entails pragmatically utilising publicly available data sources for which there are known limitations. Greater access to the ABS data would benefit the skills system considerably.

Data Comprehensiveness
While the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) and Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) provide the basis for standardised collection, analysis and dissemination of occupational and industry data, they do not capture new and emerging occupations/industries; nor do they reflect the evolution of existing occupations/industries and skill standards. This means that for many industries the mismatch is so great to create a significant lack of trust in the ABS data, and for any classification of skills based on ABS data as recently published by the National Skills Commission. As the NSC attempts to consult on the flawed framework it seems like industry has to argue its case and try to “beat” the resources of the NSC to demonstrate what is wrong with their new classification system. It is hoped that JSA will follow a collaborative approach rather than attempting original work. Some of the work of the previous NSC was original with a great degree of NSC ownership which then required defence from views from industry stakeholders that was not supportive of the work. We hope that JSA will learn from this and work collaboratively with existing stakeholder networks instead of creating their own ideas and frameworks without collaboration.

Smaller or niche industries, such as Animal Care & Management and Conservation & Ecosystem Management continue to be left behind by larger industries such as Agriculture because of the lack of availability of data for these sectors (as examples). The  result is that sectors having a wealth of data and evidence are the ones that drive decision-making on all aspects of government funding/strategies/workforces for such industries.

Data Sample sizes
Between censuses, formal workforce data collection is through the ABS’s Quarterly Labour Force survey. Due to the small sample sizes used in these surveys, industry and workforce data is relatively inaccurate and unreliable (e.g. it cannot adequately represent seasonal or migrant workforces). 

As sample sizes are even smaller for smaller/niche industries, the margin for error is greater than with larger industries (i.e. inaccuracies and data fluctuations are more likely), which further marginalises the status of, and planning for, smaller industries.
 
Data Timeliness
NCVER’s Total VET Activity dataset is only released in August for the previous year. It would be of advantage to all users if this could be sped up so that there is more relevant data available on enrolments and qualification usage for workforce development plans during the start of the year. 

Current Data Opportunity
The release of 2021 Census Employment, Income and Education data offers the greatest opportunity for accurate and comprehensive data analysis since 2016, particularly for variables such as:
•	Occupation, labour force status
•	Industry of employment
•	Number and size of businesses
•	Geographical areas/regions/remoteness
•	Workforce ages, highest level of education, Indigenous status

This data will be a crucial starting point for Workforce Planning. It is important also to recognise limitations of the public Census dataset; for example, ANZSIC codes are only displayed to the four-digit level (meaning smaller occupations are grouped with occupations from other industries and the data cannot be separated), and ‘highest level of education’ does not indicate the field of education (so there is only partial evidence of the links between occupation and education level). Such limitations will make it important to explore whether skills bodies will have access to more complex versions of datasets than are available publicly, or if privileged private data requests can be arranged.


In conclusion

JSA represents a fantastic opportunity to collaboratively work with a whole group of stakeholders to address issues that bedevil Australia and Australia’s capacity to skill its people with the right skills in the right locations. A clean break from the work of the Skills Commission is welcome as this did not provide any noticeable leadership or collaborative direction and outcomes over its lifecycle. It has not created a foundation to be built on and needs to be abandoned as a conceptual failure of the previous government.

Two quotes from Jim Chalmers as the treasurer of Australia from a 2023 essay published in The Monthly that helps us to express the intent of our submission on the design of JSA:

With a new, values-based capitalism for Australia, we can understand something the old thinking neglected: that the problems of government – of whole societies – don’t and shouldn’t permit one simple solution set. Single frameworks tend to close thinking down when what we need is to open our thinking up – to new approaches and new participants.

 I know from my own community in Logan, south of Brisbane, how unjust it is that people who live on the outskirts of capital cities and in some regional areas experience much more inequality than other citizens. But this injustice presents an opportunity: to focus our attention on place-based initiatives where communities have the genuine input, local leadership, resources and authority to define a new and better future especially for kids.

Response:

No response provided.