Brown, Gordon - Aviation Australia

Response:

What does industry engagement mean to you?
Industry engagement means to me the real time identification of S/K/A required for employees to maintain validity within their role and communication of these S/K/A to a responsible body for oversight and training adjustment as determined.

How can industry be encouraged to connect with and use the VET system? 
Industry needs to see rapid changes to the employees skills as the workplace requirements changes so graduates are job ready.  Workplace assessment by approved Workplace Assessors should be recognised as direct evidence by an RTO who then applies due diligence to ensure all the criteria for the required standard are met.
Note: I understand that industry WPA position is rolling back of the clock a little but industry needs to more involved in the final assessment of the standards required in the workplace.

What does this look like?
A central data base of S/K/As that can be easily reviewed and adjusted from all relevant industry stakeholders of that occupational workplace/job.

Are there any roles for industry in the VET system that are not covered or outlined in the case for change?
Improve the value of the workplace assessment and make it equivalent to direct evidence collection for WPA role again.

Response:

Yes

Response:

What works well and what could be improved? 
The ability for a lot of industry to understand the VET training packages and how to build them is limited. The feedback on the employee's job readiness needs to be linked directly to the industry's understanding of the critical S/K/A required now.  

How could it be improved?
Provide a means for industry to input daily and weekly into the S/K/A's that they require for economically operation in a data base.  Provide those that input into the development of the training standards/packages an economic incentive.
If you want efficient training that meets the workplace requirement at the lowest cost to industry why would you not involve the RTO's and the regulators to help industry form the training package design.

How well are you (or your organisation) represented by these arrangements?
We are not part of the industry based solution yet we are position between the regulators and industry.
RTO's are caught in the middle where we have to deliver the training package (even it it is out of date) to industry and makes sure we meet the standards required by ASQA and the workplace regulator. Then we receive all the negative communication from the industry on why the training is not meeting job requirements and cost too much.

How well do current arrangements allow collaboration across industry sectors on common workforce and skills needs?
It does not allow industry as a whole to input into the workplace S/K/A in real time. Only certain members of the Industry that have the motivation (negative/positive) it seems to be involved in the training Package development. 

Response:

How can workers be equipped with skills that can be applied across different jobs? 
Demystify the foundations skills that are required by industry all around the world and include these as identified 
measurable within the core to each training level qualification.

How can industry support this through the VET system?
Participate and have ownership of the workplace assessments again so that S/K/A are approved by the employer

How can we break down silos and improve collaboration across industry groups?
A data base of foundation and core skills required for an occupation can be compared and communicated into industry so that visibility of these are easy to understand. 
Example: If and electrician has completed basic electrical theory then now needs to apply this into the housing environment and the an employer from mining wants to use those skills in a mine how does the industry easily know what they have been trained in and how much training is required for them to use these S/K/A in their industry.

Response:

Are the different needs of industry and learners effectively considered in designing qualifications in the current system? 
No not within engineering areas of the aviation industry. Until the regulators (CASA) standards/licencing requirements aligned with the ASQA training packages and meet what industry wants, no one will be happy.

What works well and why?
Total alignment of the training packages with the regulatory Manual of Standards (MOS) requirements with acceptance of the approved regulatory assessors as providing direct evidence for assessment works. 

Are there issues or challenges with the way qualifications are currently designed? 
As above, with regulatory approved assessor not recognised by ASQA to provide direct evidence of assessment 

What are they and what could be done to address these?
Align the industry training packages to regulations that require licence outcomes
accept regulatory approved assessors evidence as direct for the approve VET RTO to evaluate using their responsibilities as an RTO to evaluate this and issue if the standard is met the qualification.

Response:

Why would you try and develop an industry training package with out the RTO and Regulators involved in the process. Industry have the currency and the K/S/A requirements which provide the content to the training but this done in isolation to what is regulator's needs/standards are as well as what available training design and delivery methods are needed and accessible by that industry does not make sense to me. Also to stimulate certain industry the Federal and States are providing funding for training so if this is part of growing the Australian industry into a new area why would they also not be involved in direct the training package need.

Ultimately the questions to be answered are "Why does the VET qualification not qualify the employee to work within the industry and why does it not meet the regulator's (CASA) licensing requirements?"

In the end the RTO has to train the approved training training package standards regardless of where industry has moved on or innovated into new areas. If this out of date training then also does not meet the CASA regulatory licence requirements that aviation industry require for operations (as the Aeroskills Diplomas do not) then it completely negates any requirement for a VET qualification at all other than gaining funding from the States/Federal Governments for the training.  So industry recognises that the training is not what they need but require the government funding to gain at least a certain level of training at an affordable cost. Do they care about the VET AQF qualification no, do they need the VET qualification to do their work no. Certainly not in the Australian aviation industry.