Anonymous - 14

Response:

The role of industry definitely needs to be expanded. RTOs, unions and ASSNs have far to much say in VET.

Regular pulse surveys would be helpful - most industry reps wear many hats and are busy so anything too long or with limited options as far as timing will rule them out. That is where the above groups win - it is their job and in some cases 100% of their job. But our nation and economy will not be positive without employers. And while we continue to be ignored or misheard or overruled by other interests the system will continue to crumble and fail.

Given we have now all got used to online meetings this can level the playing field - for all parties not located in capital cities or major regional centres. But have some INDUSTRY ONLY forums.

Also please really understand "industry" is not one homogenous group. Manufacturing is not all the same. Thus a cookie-cutter approach by states for VTOs and by RTOs to suit their own operational requirements will not deliver the right result.

Response:

Yes

Response:

In my view very poor. Meetings are scheduled for several hours to one day at a time. People who need to earn a living / manage a business cannot dedicate that much time to this. It is NOT the core business...but for other people on IRCs it is there job so they are quite happy to fill their days with meetings and to run these quite inefficiently. 

People within IRCs jockey for air time and to achieve their own needs rather than looking at INDUSTRY NEEDS and "a greater good".

I sit on one of these and I am not aware of any other person in a similar role or similar organisation who is involved.

The current system relies on "the big end of town" and unions to tell the story on behalf of all employers - it is a very biased view and disadvantages those that don't fit this cookie cutter.

Some examples are around Engineering Fabrication where we have a most ridiculous outcome where schools cannot have students doing anything other than Certificate 1. But where the students are often very well prepared for apprenticeships. Also, at apprentice training level the RTOs tell us which so called electives the apprentice will do because that is all they can resource.

While the system is supposed to be one user choice it most definitely is not.

Response:

In my mind we need to rub out and start again. I keep saying things like:
A tape measure is a tape measure.
A drill is a drill.
And so on...people nod in keen agreement. But we treat tools and safety as totally different things for various contexts. We could massively simplify the foundation skills area by having common units for various sectors (MEM, AUM, construction etc.) just as one example.

I am confident that this would help schools, RTOs involved in "pre apprenticeship" programs and hiring organisations to more easily navigate the crazy complex system we have at present.

When you get into real trade related skills of course you have to be more specific.

If you want real collaboration with industry, you actually have to invite them and make accommodation to keep them involved. For instance, don't run meetings in the middle of the day when we are all busy / distracted by the day's events. Have them very early (when probably 'government workers' are not yet working) or late, say starting at 4 or 5 pm. Those of us that care will be there.

Response:

From the qualifications we tap into they are mostly fit for purpose on paper. But when you get down to electives or any form of customisation it is not easy at all.

The needs of industry and / or learners are NOT effectively considered in either design or delivery.

Response:

Yes. We must seriously review the current APPRENTICESHIP system. It is by and large out of step with contemporary business needs.

Get out and talk with a wide range of people - not just managers or HR managers but those who are the real customers of the VET system.