Crittenden, Geoff - Weld Australia - Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Australian Government

Related consultation: Submissions - Skills Reform: Improving industry engagement and reforming qualifications in Vocational Education and Training discussion paper
Submission received: 15 February 2021

Does the role of industry need to be strengthened or expanded across the VET system? Why/why not? What does industry engagement mean to you? How can industry be encouraged to connect with and use the VET system? What does this look like? Are there any roles for industry in the VET system that are not covered or outlined in the case for change?

Response:

The role of industry needs to be expanded across the VET system because the the MEM training package in respect to welding does not meet does not meet the current requirments for our members to comply with international Standards and future requirements to adopt I4.0.  Participants in the existing training package development process (IRC/SSO) lack the technical and industry knowledge to be able to make sensible decisions about what and what not needs to included to make Australian industry internationally competitive.  Furthermore the parties that dominate the membership of those organisations are too interested in pushing their own ideological IR viewpoint and are not open to listening to industry experts. 

Training packages, learning resources and assessment tools should be the responsibility of industry as recommended by the Joyce Report.  Removing the bureaucracy between industry and the VET system will increase industry engagement. The VET system takes the blame from industry for poor and inflexible training packages and insufficient funds to deliver relevant training; this needs to be fixed. 

Peakl Bodies should become SO as they are driving the agenda to make Australia internationally competitive.

Are you aware of the current industry-leadership arrangements led by the Australian Industry and Skills Commission?

Response:

Yes

How effective are the current industry engagement arrangements in VET in meeting your needs? What works well and what could be improved? How could it be improved? How well are you (or your organisation) represented by these arrangements? How well do current arrangements allow collaboration across industry sectors on common workforce and skills needs?

Response:

From a welding perspective industry engagement arrangements are poor. Changes in the training package are not achieved through consultation but all out war.   Our organisation is on a TAC but we found no consolation just direction; 'this is how it's going to be'!

If examples of an industry sector would be power generation; defence; steel fabrication; resources; construction; manufacturing etc  then as welding is a process which is used across all these sectors there is some collaboration fostered by Weld Australia.  I am not aware of any 'current arrangements' and have seen no evidence of this coming from the VET bureaucracy.

What can be done to drive greater collaboration across industries to broaden career pathways for VET graduates and maximise the workforce available to employers? How can workers be equipped with skills that can be applied across different jobs? How can industry support this through the VET system? How can we break down silos and improve collaboration across industry groups?

Response:

Certified welding skills are completely transferable between different jobs.  

However, currently welding is taught across a range of training packages i.e. fabrication/plumbing/automotive mechanical/ automotive body etc.  All welding should be taught by qualified and certified instructors and assessed to the international standard for welding ISO9606.  The failure to do this puts an enormous cost impost on industry because tradesmen who complete a welding module, in say plumbing, consider themselves to be competent welders, which they are not. This results in industry wasting money testing them to the appropriate standards, or worse, implying them as welders.

Are qualifications fit-for-purpose in meeting the needs of industry and learners now and into the future? Why/why not? Are the different needs of industry and learners effectively considered in designing qualifications in the current system? What works well and why? Are there issues or challenges with the way qualifications are currently designed? What are they and what could be done to address these?

Response:

No.

Welding qualifications do not meet Australian or International welding competency Standards. Courses are 'aligned' to AS but do not result in a recognised accredited qualification.  A newly qualified tradesperson completing the MEM package is not competent in the basic requirements for a welder:

(i) weld to ISO9606 or AS1554
(ii) read and understand a welding procedure
(iii) set up a welding machine and material to carry out a welding procedure


Those responsible for welding training packages are not aware of what is required by industry. The scope of welding is too broad for any single industry representative to have the necessary understanding of what is required.  This is the role of a peak body.

Are there any further issues in relation to improving industry engagement in the VET sector that you would like to provide feedback on?

Response:

Let industry take responsibility for VET training and work collaboratively with the providers to deliver what is needed.  Government should simply provide a framework for facilitating this relationship. It is not the VET sector that needs reform ; it is Government management,.

Let our apprentices be assessed and accredited to international standards by experts.  

Look forward!