Whistler, Rick - Agriculture and Production Horticulture Industry Reference Committee

Response:

Agriculture and production horticulture industries are among the largest and most important in Australia. They are critical to the economies of Regional, Rural and Remote (RRR) Australia and to our international trade reputation and markets. It is in the interests of the VET sector to include stronger industry involvement across the sector, and not limit the role of industry, as currently, to dealing with Skill Standards in Training Packages.

The role of VET is to meet the needs of industry relating to skills and competency. If the VET sector is not currently supporting industry needs at an appropriate level, then it is the VET sector that needs to engage more with industry. The Discussion Paper seems to assume that the key stakeholder is the VET sector, however from an industry perspective, VET is only one avenue of skills acquisition, albeit a critical one and supported by governments based on public interest and benefit. 

The Federal Parliamentary Report "Growing Australia" notes:
"Increasingly, universities and the VET sector will play an important role in training the next generation of agricultural farm-workers, managers, business owners, service providers, and technology specialists."

It recommends that departments work "in conjunction with industry, [to] develop a nationally recognised qualification and professional development system for agriculture" covering school, VET, university, and professional development pathways. This requires an industry focussed system to deliver skills at appropriate competency levels, across multiple education pathways. This report recognises that this system is currently not in place. The IRC is of the view that the VET system under its current policy and funding settings is failing to deliver what is needed into the Ag sector.

Industry participates in mechanisms such as IRCs, research and regional development bodies, and industry peak bodies to facilitate engagement on a host of fronts, yet these mechanisms are undervalued, underused and sometimes even mistrusted by the VET sector. Industry engagement brings immediate and long-term issues into focus which would benefit VET, many of which are not considered through current processes. Industry issues that can be aided through VET go beyond skills gaps, jobs, and current enrolments and these should be incorporated into the system.

With some notable exceptions, the VET sector has limited success delivering the results needed by industry in RRR Australia which are critical to agricultural sectors. This is a long-term and known situation. Time and attention are constantly drawn to training package processes (and sometimes to RTO issues but to a much lesser extent) instead of productivity related skill issues the system was established to address. 

A primary example is the use of industry skills standards as though they are training modules requiring specific enrolments, instead of recognising that the misnamed Training Packages are designed by industry to describe competency, which is the end result of training and industry practice. These skill standards can be and should be used by innovative and expert training bodies and professionals, inside and outside of VET, to design appropriate training programs, via properly designed curriculum (and industry can utilise the standards for other purposes). 

The VET sector is not the only sector industry has to work with, and many industries have established cooperative systems to address this through industry peaks, CRCs, and RDAs. However, contributions from these bodies are being discounted. It is important to have direct information from employers into the content of training packages and skills updates but discounting the work and voice of other bodies means a lot of value is left unused. 

The VET sector appears to want industry to work to the needs, requirements and standards of VET that are often not industry based. As an IRC, we are asked provide data and give guarantees about the future of training by RTOs we do not control.  The gathering of such information is resource intensive, time consuming, and often unfeasible in meaningful, valid ways. Employers will not commit to enrolments three years down the track. Much of the data being requested of IRCs lies in the hands of government bodies, is held at its source by RTOs, not industry or IRCs, and is not available without significant additional resources (and costs) being applied to collect this data. At the moment this data capture is not funded, and no mechanism exists in industry to gather this, yet the AISC is requiring it to support cases for change.

Response:

Yes

Response:

The Agriculture and Production Horticulture (APH) IRC has worked effectively within the IRC Operating Framework. Dealing with one of Australia's largest Training Packages, the IRC is working with the Amenity Horticulture, Landscaping, and Conservation & Land Management (AHLCLM) IRC, and has designed and led the innovative Unit Sector Approach to deliver a full review of the Training Package with large improvements in speed to market. This approach identifies areas where qualifications can be merged and units used by broader industries, especially those working with animals and plants.

This approach means industry engagement to develop skills standards can be undertaken utilising experts in using specified skills across sectors, instead of having to go back to the same groups of experts and peak bodies repeatedly, as happens under the components or qualification-based approach. 

The Unit Sector Approach was suggested and designed by the SSO, which services a number of related industries covered by other Training Packages. If the IRC/SSO model has time to further develop, collaboration across industry sectors will continue to improve. IRCs will be able to focus more on collaboration opportunities as Training Packages are fully updated, with consequent reductions in qualification and unit numbers. Unfortunately, other initiatives from non-industry bodies undermine current IRC-driven work and the industry-perceived influence of IRCs. It is difficult to maintain and build trust with industry when the IRC is continually advising them of decisions made by non-agricultural bodies. 

The primary role of IRCs is to describe the job roles and job functions of the industry, (formulated into units of competency which are not in industry's preferred format) not to create qualifications and design training modules. As you would expect given Australia's incredible geographic and climate diversity, the range of Australia's agriculture industries is as varied as any in the world, and certainly far greater than in countries often used for international comparisons when considering ranges of job roles and job functions. It is difficult for one or two committees (APH and AHLCLM IRCs) to fully represent this diversity. It is critical to seek industry advice and to trust that advice, subject to due diligence and governance. 

The project work requirements for development of industry skills standards are very detailed and prescriptive, and still the AISC often requests more or feels there are not enough employers involved, even after employer and stakeholder engagement is reviewed by the quality panel members. There are increasing demands for evidence of more industry engagement covering a wider range of intelligence. The SSOs are given limited resources to conduct the projects and provide IRC support, and project funding is based on the number of units being reviewed and developed. 

IRC members are volunteers who have to consider the issues of all of the potential industries that might want to share some of the skills training and consult across all areas affecting productivity that may be relevant to VET. IRC members focus on the industries they most closely work and this fills more than enough of the time they can donate to the IRC.  

Having a small number of SSOs working across numerous industries seems an appropriate mechanism for the system, if it was properly resourced. It would be helpful if SSOs could also incorporate work with VET Sector reference committees, Indigenous and disadvantaged learner committees and RTO networks, to ensure that the relevant viewpoints are available to IRCs, and through IRCs to other decision-makers. This would mean broadening and funding ranges and styles of engagement beyond pure industry skills engagement, which appears an appropriate reform.

Response:

The APH IRC has been working to update the Training Package to meet industry needs, and this has been its highest priority. As this has been achieved, other priorities have also been addressed to meet immediate and emerging industry needs. Consequently, the AHC Training Package has updated content which are shared and imported across a wide variety of industries, particularly those dealing with animals and plants, and those based in RRR Australia. 

These training package components are shared across industries because these industries already have levels of cooperation and shared skills needs. In 2019, there were 366 AHC Units imported in other Training Packages. Farmers work with food processing and manufacturing, logistics, storage, warehousing, export, transport, QA, retail operations and other industries.  Recently the IRCs were asked to consider issues related to AHC units used by the mining industry. The solution that had already been designed and approved by the IRCs was suitable to meet all stakeholder needs. The skills standards are designed this way because the APH and AHLCLM IRCs are keenly aware of their responsibilities to define and outline industry skills standards that are suitable across industries. On the other hand, this needs to be balanced with the needs of specific industry sectors. This balance is important and the IRC spends considerable time considering these issues. 

The AHC Training Package covers training in many collaborating industries. The agricultural sectors cover a remarkable range of products, as well as an incredible range of work methods. Dry farming in central Australia is very different to tropical farming in northern Australia or temperate farming in southern Australia. Large scale corporate farming on enormous properties is vastly different to small scale farming run as family businesses and farming being undertaken by Indigenous communities. 

Developing industry standards for new skills does not mean that industry standards for older skills can be deleted, as they are still in use in many operations. The Training Package standards are clear that products cannot be deleted from the system unless the skills are no longer required by industry. This measurement of industry skill needs as dictated by Training Package Standards that bind the SSO and the IRC has no connection to enrolments, currently being used by the AISC as the major measure of industry need despite not being supported by industry experience and expert feedback, more appropriate measures of industry need. 

The needs of industry are served by describing industry skills standards, identifying the skills needed and the standards required to demonstrate competency. If this is not meeting the needs of the VET sector, this is because of the misuse of these standards as training content, including regulation and enrolment being based on the individual components of the skills standards. Calling these Training Packages, qualifications, units, and training products, rather than Industry Skills Standards, Industry Role Descriptions and Job Function Competency Standards (or something similar) adds to industry confusion, diminishes the potential value of the work, and creates inefficiencies in the system.

Silos and barriers exist in competitive industry environments. Industry works to create efficiencies, increase productivity, and reduce costs through "competitive collaboration" but each business is looking to its own success and survival. Training specific for a job role is efficient for a business as it can match training to job roles in the workplace, which increases productivity far more quickly than broader training.

We believe the VET system is losing sight of alignment to increased productivity, greater efficiency and reduced costs for businesses. Proposals for VET reform would be well received if couched in terms that offer benefits to employers rather than the VET sector regulators, administrators and funders. 

Response:

The qualifications approved by the APH IRC (and the AHLCLM IRC) are fit for purpose. Different needs of industry and learners are effectively considered as far as possible within resource restraints and VET policies and procedures. The system is not established to strongly consider learner types (e.g., disadvantaged learners) in Training Package development as the standards require (appropriately) that IRCs work on the development of industry skills standards. 

What IRCs develop are a valuable resource for industry that can be used in business, workforce, HR, and training planning. This resource would become more valuable if a) it was not called a Training package, and referred to as training products and b) it was supported by nationally consistent assessment and training materials (i.e., curriculum) 

Agricultural industries work with governments to create broad national and jurisdictional strategies, such as the NFF Roadmap and Growing Australia, the recent Federal Parliamentary report which will be supported by the National Agricultural Workforce Strategy. It is critical that the VET system adapts to support these industry initiatives, not that the AISC demands that industry adapt to support the VET sector. 

At the moment, the IRC is being driven to achieve VET aims at the expense of time and resources that can be used to achieve industry aims. IRCs need to focus on jobs for the future, digital skilling, access to skills and training in RRR Australia, and initiatives that will support access to local and international markets.  It is beyond the capacity of the IRC to deal with all of the issues that relate to thin markets, such as:
•	Availability of skilled and qualified trainers.
•	Availability of equipment, infrastructure, or other resources.
•	Availability of prospective students (viable numbers).
•	Ability to meet ASQA compliance requirements.
•	WHS or other risks associated with delivery.
•	Access to public funding to support delivery.
•	Cost of course design and\or materials.
•	Geographical spread of students and\or workplaces.
•	The ability to deliver the desired elements in your institution or a workplace.


A narrow focus on enrolment numbers, which will be skewed towards urban industries and training, will not address real industry issues, training delivery in all RRR industry sectors or improve Australian productivity. 

Training in agricultural industries requires workplace experience, and VET is the best available source of formal education which includes significant workplace training. Access to this training which is often not being delivered due to RTO decisions for agricultural industries is the critical challenge for employers and learners. We support VET Reform initiatives that would focus on addressing these needs, unfortunately this does not appear to be on the agenda at this point of time.
While qualifications (industry skills standards) are fit-for-purpose, the VET system does not, with the exception of small, useful pockets of delivery, effectively deliver industry training in the Agriculture and Production Horticulture Industry.  The capacity of the VET delivery and funding system (as distinct from the SSO/IRC engagement system) to properly engage with industry lies at the heart of this failure. There are multiple sources of evidence for the AISC, DESE and STAs to consider, including the previously mentioned NFF Roadmap and recent Federal Government reports/strategies, the Napthine National Regional, Rural and Remote Tertiary Education Study (the Napthine Report) and the Productivity Commission report to name a few recent efforts. 

Response:

Not at this time