Ford, Alexandra - Local Government Professionals Australia

Response:

The local government sector, comprised of 537 local governments across Australia, has a wide range of capacity and capability and while the workforce needs for each local government may differ there are common core functions. The sector utilises multiple training packages to train its workforce in these core roles. While directly engaged with the Local Government Training Package through representation on the Industry Reference Committee (IRC) by industry associations and council representatives, local governments as employers are not represented in other IRCs nor consulted in the formal processes on the development of the packages that affect such a high number in their skilled workforces.

Sector consultation has revealed that the formal processes of VET package development is opaque and that local government understanding of how to actively engage with the VET system is vague, leading to minimal engagement. This level of engagement with the VET sector also varies greatly within the sector. While some local governments support 1-2 apprenticeships or traineeships at a time, larger organisations can support over 90 apprenticeships. Unsurprisingly, many local governments supplement standard VET training with in-house courses or turn to professional associations to provide non-accredited training to meet their needs. HR managers tend to preference Tertiary qualification through universities in their employment criteria or in considering career advancement. 

Local government mainly engages with the VET system through Registered Training Organisations (RTO) and this can range from upskilling staff with existing RTO qualifications to engaging RTOs to contextualise qualifications to fit its workforce. In some cases, regional local governments jointly engage RTOs in the development of training suited specifically to local government (mainly to justify the RTO running training based on the number of enrolments in the course) however these cases are exceptions rather than the norm where local government employers will send staff to general ‘fit for purpose’ qualification. RTOs may be provided feedback on the quality and relevance of the training provided, but few have reported any change as a result of feedback. In some cases, State or Territory Training Authorities have provided coordination for local governments to provide feedback and engage in qualification development. Local Government Associations (LGAs) in each State have been the main link to any formal VET engagement or announcements, with Local Government Professionals Australia the main link at a national level. Local governments in remote and regional areas of Australia are at a greater disadvantage as they generally cannot train staff locally and need to outlay significant funds to send staff to major cities or larger regional centres to receive training that may still not be the exact fit for their occupational needs. There is a need here for the VET system to be more alert particularly to the training requirements of employers in rural and regional areas and for RTOs to be more flexible and adaptable in their content and delivery to be inclusive of all of Australia. Overall, industry should be more engaged and informed of the process, particularly in the local government sector.

Response:

Yes

Response:

Local Government Professionals Australia is the current Chair of the Local Government IRC, and as such has a sound understanding of current industry arrangements in place to design and develop VET qualifications. From this vantage point though, the organisation has identified numerous issues with these arrangements. Even as an IRC member, the roles, responsibilities, and intended outcomes, from consultation to review processes, have not always been clear. It has only been in the last 18 months that clarity on the role of industry has been established, now leveraged in the Training Package review process. The process was previously led and run by Skills Service Organisations (SSO) with little engagement with industry or active participation by IRC members. [CONTENT REDACTED]. In the end, strong Chairing saw the engagement of LGAs as observers to the IRC process, industry engagement, and the leveraging of expertise by involving technical experts from local governments across Australia in the development of qualifications and competency units. The structure of the Local Government IRC now requires greater involvement with senior local government officers with a strategic view of local government business as well as support from technical experts through working groups and advisory bodies. 

Timeframes for industry consultation in our experience have been prohibitive to engagement, with only several weeks notification of consultation workshops. In a busy sector such as local government, timeframes for announcements need to be expanded. To be able to broadly advertise consultation opportunities to the sector, longer lead times and expanded consultation periods need to be considered. Flexibility is also required, with online/virtual sessions much more accessible and inclusive than single sessions in major cities. As two thirds of local government organisations are based in regional or rural areas, harnessing video conferencing tools and webinars for more engagement should be considered.

As local government is a major employer of workers with diverse VET skills, there is a need for cross-industry engagement with broad sectors and large employer groups such as local government. The sector employs this diverse workforce through technical apprenticeships in various trade, roads and horticulture areas, as well as in business administration, community services and childcare. While this does not necessarily mean that local government representation would be required on every relevant IRC, consultation between these IRCs and the local government IRC on relevant qualifications and skillsets that overlap with local government would be appropriate. The new local government training package incorporates competency units from 22 training packages where there is no replacement unit (as mandated by the AISC) within its own package. The potential of deleting a competency unit from a package that is core to another training package and to that industry’s skillset is a major risk without consultation and consideration. Local Government Professionals Australia’s experience on the IRC has revealed little to no engagement from other IRCs and/or changes to their packages. 

Consultation with local governments reveal that there is little knowledge of the formal processes of designing and developing VET qualifications. Some were not even aware that a specific Local Government package existed nor were clear which training package a qualification that their staff required came from. Local government HR managers would support more collaboration and consideration of local government requirements in relevant trades and technical roles. 

Response:

Greater industry collaboration on VET qualification development and training delivery is required to ensure VET-qualified staff at local government organisations have the right skills for their roles. This can be achieved at several different levels. More engagement between IRCs where competency units and skillsets have been imported should be occurring, as changes to one Training Package could alter the effectiveness of other qualifications, particularly if these are core competency units. The current appetite by the AISC to have less competency units and to encourage the importation of units from other packages increases the need for more consultation and engagement when changes are occurring. Local Government Professionals Australia’s experience on the Local Government IRC has revealed that the ‘one fits all’ model is not helpful to industry and that RTOs generally do not contextualise qualifications and deliver local government-relevant units to the sector, thereby reducing the relevance to industry employers. Local government consultation is essential and can be achieved at several levels including consultation with the Local Government IRC as well as more broadly engaging LGAs to advertise/promote changes or updates to training packages to the sector. 

Local government VET-qualified staff are highly transferable to other industries in some roles such as childcare and aged care, and other trade roles, road maintenance skills, community service and administrative roles are generally transferable. There would only be limited roles covered by the local government training package that may not have an equivalent outside the sector. Part of Local Government Professionals Australia’s is to promote local government career pathways within organisations and the greater sector due to the many different roles within it. This need to pursue this role is exacerbated by a skills shortage in many VET-qualified roles throughout the local government sector. Encouraging qualified staff from outside the sector to join the local government workforce and promoting career pathways for VET students into local government are therefore areas this organisation is involved. More collaboration between LGAs, educational institutions and the sector is needed to achieve this.

In general, local governments would like to see more flexibility and career pathways between roles within their own organisations, particularly in rural and remote areas where they find it difficult to attract and employ key skills. There is also a strong appetite for job-sharing and professional secondments and exchanges between local governments in skill shortage areas such as environmental health and land-use planning. Although these roles generally come with Tertiary qualifications, the support staff who are responsible for the ongoing related tasks generally rely on VET training. Job-sharing and secondments to other local governments is also applicable to trainees and apprentices so that they can experience the different tasks and duties their ‘role’ would have on the job at rural, regional and metropolitan councils. Many smaller local governments also do not have staff capacity to manage an apprentice or trainee, therefore sharing apprentices and trainees between these organisations could be an effective solution for both employee and employer.

Response:

The ‘one fits all’ nature of many qualifications offered by RTOs does not necessarily cater well to the local government sector which employs staff from multiple training packages. In particular, current qualifications and RTO training does not cater well to remote and rural employers both in content and in delivery. Local governments therefore supplement VET with in-house or non-accredited training to meet their needs. The particular issue of remote and rural staff needing to travel to regional centres or capital cities for training has a financial cost that limits training opportunities for other staff. As local government in remote areas employs a higher-than-average percentage of indigenous staff, cultural considerations of leaving family and community for training can also be an issue. Qualifications are designed to be contextualised, adaptable and inclusive however this does not mean that RTOs will design and deliver courses that are appropriate. 

Typically, local governments do not have the funds to engage an RTO to do this for 1-2 employees and will instead send staff to general training for the particular qualification. Through the formal training package and qualification design process, we are aware that it is the not the responsibility of the SSO and IRC to ensure that competency units are relevant and inclusive of both students and employers but that this instead falls to the RTO at the request of employers. More consideration though on how to make the delivery of training appropriate without burdening an employer with high costs may be required. Alternatively, more coordination or support to the local government sector to ensure adequate numbers of students are available to design and contextualise unit delivery may see more appropriate training provided.

Local Government Professionals Australia’s experience with the recent update of the new Local Government Training Package is that there is no flexibility for considering future skills as the focus is on updating an outdated package to meet current needs. Once this package is being offered by RTOs later in 2021, the hope is that consideration can be then given to the changing needs of the sector and future skills as part of the ongoing maintenance of the package. 

The local government sector will need common skillsets for digital competency across its workforce including IT, data and cyber security. Another specific local government need in the future will be community/stakeholder engagement from a customer service perspective to engagement around the development of community facilities and infrastructure. Soft skills such as relationship management, communication, time management, and leadership are becoming increasingly important to the sector and this trend will only further over time. Many of these skills are not currently offered through accredited programs and local government typically turns to non-accredited training providers to deliver contextualised training to their staff. Workforce resilience and dealing with change in the workplace and community have also been highlighted by the experiences of COVID-19 and many natural disasters across the country.

Response:

No response provided.