Anonymous - 36

Response:

Links and alignment between relevant state industry advisory bodies, like the [CONTENT REDACTED] and the national structures could be strengthened. There are some gaps in representation in the current national IRCs, even though some of the IRCs are fairly specific.

Good links and alignment with the state level structures could help to address these gaps.

One option might be overarching national advisory groups similar to our ISCs in SA; but with more specific working groups (e.g. timber, seafood, meat processing, intensive livestock, extensive livestock, grains etc) which review training packages but that are also enabled to pro-actively make recommendations for their sectors as required. This might allow the specifics to be covered but without administrative burden for industry representatives. 

It’s important that industry groups wanting to get involved can get involved – either at the state or national level. This might be on a project basis (linking into working groups), when a particular review is required or training gaps need to be addressed, rather than requiring an ongoing commitment.

The more easily the structures and arrangements can be explained, with minimal VET jargon, the better for industry engagement. The development of 'plain English' guides to explain the system would assist industry engagement.

Similarly, there seems to be an implicit assumption that industry representatives and employers have a solid understanding of the complexities of the vocational education and training system, the responsibilities of different national bodies, and the interrelationships with state/territory bodies.

There is a concern that that the ANZSCO job classifications seem to permeate (and somewhat underpin - in terms of data and the evidence base underpinning decision making) the VET / training and skills system. The ANZSCO terminology for many occupations does not align with  current industry occupation terminology, making it  confusing for employers when it comes to identifying occupation and skills shortages etc. It also complicates the gathering and interpretation of meaningful data on skills and occupation shortages. The 
 impact of updating ANZSCO classifications is understood in terms of long term tracking of occupations, however, the ISC consider that the classifications need updating to facilitate industry engagement and understanding.

Engagement with industry should be responsive, enabling and coordinated.

Response:

Yes

Response:

[CONTENT REDACTED] members have identified the need for greater cross-sectoral collaboration.

While there are industry specific skills needs, there are many skills required by all employers. The ISC considers that there should be greater cross-sectoral collaboration at the national level, and that this could be done on a project basis, or a focus on specific issues to be addressed across sectors.

Some industry associations have not proactively engaged in workforce issues but have a broad reach across employers and employees in industry sectors. The upskilling of industry associations about VET would reap long term benefits.  

Response:

[CONTENT REDACTED] there is great potential and value in the development of skill sets and micro-credentials, aligned to the concept of a skills passport. 

In that context, a digital badge is also considered necessary to facilitate the capacity of employers to easily verify the training completed, and the skills with which a potential employee has be accredited.

Response:

There are some strong areas but not all training offerings are fit-for-purpose. 

There tends to be much less engagement in training by employers in less regulated areas. In many circumstances, employers do not require staff to have full qualifications. Employee access to skill set and micro-credential training would better suit many employers.

While qualifications are designed to be tailored to the needs of individual enterprises, with many electives made available, it it not financially viable for registered training organisations to deliver every elective, which leads to the delivery of more generic training than the system provides for.

Similarly, the barriers to delivery of qualifications in niche, or 'thin market's in regional areas need to be addressed.

Significant restraint is required to make sure that training package descriptions are general enough to not become outdated too quickly and apply across regions and subsectors (and different practices, equipment and systems within a sector) but allow all the value to be delivered in specific contexts – e.g. contextualising training for regions or specific sub-sectors, equipment, systems etc.


Should all training packages need to be reviewed and revised each year? There is potential for industry bodies to be charged with responsibility to undertake this review.

There are some good examples where industry has taken a leading role and, for example, Dairy Australia, an industry-owned research and development company (under the Rural Research and Development Corporations model) has coordinated activity across the states.  In that context, Dairy Australian has developed a series of short courses (https://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/people-skills-and-capability/dairy-careers).  “Cups On Cups Off” module aligns with a unit of competency (AHCDRY201 - Milk Livestock) and contributes to the Certificate II in Agriculture. However, the real value comes from all the up-to-date industry knowledge and research brought in by Dairy Australia.

Response:

No response provided.