Anonymous - 32

Response:

Does the role of industry need to be strengthened or expanded across the VET system? 

Yes, the role of industry need to be strengthened or expanded across the VET system. Industry is generally busy and time poor and when asked to engage are generally unable to contribute effectively.

What does industry engagement mean to you?

Industry having a voice and participate in skilling new and existing workforce. 


How can industry be encouraged to connect with and use the VET system? What does this look like?

Industry Training Advisory Bodies (ITABs) in NSW or Industry Skills Advisers (ISA's) in QLD are autonomous, industry based bodies that represent their industries on training and related matters to support the vocational education and training system. They engage with employers, small business and industry stakeholders to provide high quality, evidence-based industry advice and intelligence about current and emerging industry direction, regional skills needs and training solutions, jobs growth and employment opportunities. 


Are there any roles for industry in the VET system that are not covered or outlined in the case for change?

Not sure if this fits anywhere however, VET need to ensure regulatory requirement, state licensing and unions are kept at arms length from training packages as they do not help learning outcomes.

Response:

Yes

Response:

What works well and what could be improved? How could it be improved?

Industry Training Advisory Bodies (ITABs) in NSW or Industry Skills Advisers (ISA's) in QLD work well. 
They are autonomous, industry based bodies that represent their industries on training and related matters to support the vocational education and training system. They engage with employers, small business and industry stakeholders to provide high quality, evidence-based industry advice and intelligence about current and emerging industry direction, regional skills needs and training solutions, jobs growth and employment opportunities. 


How well are you (or your organisation) represented by these arrangements?

Our organization is fairly well plugged into the engagement process through the MTAQ who has a contract with the State Government (DESBT) around Industry Engagement. 


How well do current arrangements allow collaboration across industry sectors on common workforce and skills needs?

Not well at all. A lot of duplication in development of resources etc. Could be consolidated state-by-state within the same sectors to start with followed by cross-sector.
 

Response:

How can workers be equipped with skills that can be applied across different jobs? How can industry support this through the VET system?

Skill Sets and Micro-credentials would help equipped workers with skills that can be applied across different jobs



How can we break down silos and improve collaboration across industry groups?

In theory a centralised development model would capture all industries and identify cross-over or collaboration opportunities. 

Response:

Are qualifications fit-for-purpose in meeting the needs of industry and learners now and into the future? Why/why not?

Yes, they are fit for purpose however, in some cases training providers do not negotiate training plans with enterprise in order to deliver the skills and knowledge required.
No, sometimes the lag in training package updates/development leads to gaps in qualifications


Are the different needs of industry and learners effectively considered in designing qualifications in the current system? What works well and why?

Yes, they are but again in some cases training providers do not negotiate training plans with enterprise in order to deliver the skills and knowledge required.


Are there issues or challenges with the way qualifications are currently designed? What are they and what could be done to address these?

State licensing/regulations and unions can remove the focus of learning outcomes within a training package.

Response:

Training packages should be developed by industry and they should take the form of learning and assessment materials, not the current framework that individual training providers then need to interpret and develop learning and assessment material which not only is a duplication but opens up the issue of interpretation by individual trainer/assessors.

This models seems so inefficient!! The SSO is not industry but need industry to ensure a workable product.

In its current form once endorsed the training package needs a whole lot of development work before a training provider can use it. Training and assessment material  can be in some cases developed by 1000's of trainer assessors through-out the country, each with their own respective interpretation. Surely this isn't the intent of a training package to have 1000's of different interpretations. Centralisation of the development process (not the current training package format) would ensure the same outcome regardless of the training provider.