Shreeve, Robin - Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association (AVETRA) / Federation University

Response:

As Professor Gavin Ewart, a UK/European Skills Expert, observed for an industry led system to work, industry has to engage. Our levels of industry engagement are very patchy, compared to countries like Germany. A lot of it is cultural. The social partners - government, industry and employee associations in Germany are deeply committed and structurally recognised in their system. But Australia would have to accept higher levels of regulation to match this.

Industries in Australia that employ traditional apprentices such as construction and hairdressing  are more engaged than some newer industries. Licensing is a powerful incentive.

Employers are sometimes reluctant to invest in training as the benefits of the training go more to the employee and their next employer. Hence training levy schemes have been tried to address this. But what better levy scheme is there than the tax system.

So rather than charge employers and trainees use the tax system - but emphasise that the employer contribution is the employment of the novice worker, apprentice or intern as their are costs in these.

Industry Associations can sometimes (not always) act like private sector bureaucracies who seek to capture the system for their own purposes. Peak bodies need to be balanced by actual employers, employee associations and employee themselves. 

Response:

Yes

Response:

I really wonder if the AISC and IRCs are swamped by trying to accredit too many qualifications?

Initial qualifications need to be accredited. Anything for licensing needs to be accredited. But does every unit and skillset? 

If the skillset is a post trade course or for updating qualified existing workers covering a specific tasks or process does it have to be accredited? very few existing skilled workers are interested in qualification credits. They could always take a challenge test to gain credit for an unaccredited course later if necessary. Does every supervisory / leadership short course have to go through this process?

I an era of minimising costs, just in time and lean production firms are reluctant to commit time for these processes. Maybe you have to rely more on training professionals and the industry contribution is the time to network with these.

Response:

Initial courses and qualifications need to have a strong foundation in core and generic skills.  The German Apprenticeship System does this - in some cases teaching people a foreign language.

There are big issues here - like gender segregation in the Australian workforce. Women often have good management skills but they work in less well paid industries like care and beauty. Their generic skills are too often undervalued because people confuse their skills, experience and seniority with their pay grades and management potential.

Maybe work should be done with some HR and Recruitment Managers to recognise more core skills acquired in different industries. I know some banks value the customer service skills some students have acquired whilst working in fast food chains like Macca's.

Response:

Some of our qualifications are too fragmented and atomised. Techniques change. You cannot underestimate the continuing value and transferability of a strong foundation in the basics of numeracy, communications and teamwork.

Many people in industry have told me that the biggest skill shortage in Australia is people with good mathematical and quantitative skills. We often have shortages for engineers because they have been recruited to work in finance as they have high level mathematical and quantitative skills.

Maybe we have forgotten the differences between education and training? - and training is more of an employer, on the job process.

Response:

Basically:

- good quantitative, mathematical and communication skills are essential and transferable

- techniques change. Education and the acquisition of core theory skills is a longer term process. Training is a shorter term, on the job responsibility of employers and employees.

- we try and accredit everything - even when it is not really necessary. This clogs up and slows down the system.

- the benefits of training can be longer term and indirect and may benefit more future employers . The taxation system  is probably the best and most efficient training levy system.

- employers can have different agendas to bureaucratic industry associations - though both have a role to play. As do employees and their associations