Lilly, Megan - Australian Industry Group

Response:

As the discussion paper notes industry engagement is a core principle of the VET system. This engagement must be considered at a number of levels to ensure improvements can be made to the system.

Firstly, deeper engagement can be established at a national system level. While the National Skills Commission has been a crucial new component of the revised architecture for VET and it has a specific number of functions, Ai Group believes a national industry advisory body that provides industry leadership and policy guidance at this overarching level of the VET system is needed to strengthen its effectiveness. It would become part of formal governance arrangements and would comprise representatives of key industry and societal sectors to ensure the articulation of relevant views. 

Closer VET – industry engagement at this level will help to drive the continuous engagement now needed at all levels of the VET sector to cope with frequently changing workforce skill needs, the constant of re-skilling and learning on demand.

Ai Group believes the process of national consultation in developing and reviewing training packages can be improved. The AISC is a key industry body with a remit across VET product development & endorsement.  The AISC needs to be further empowered to drive product related policy, ensuring the policy settings are fit-for-purpose in order to meet industry needs. The AISC could be more directly connected to key industry bodies, with a holistic approach to how industry is engaged at all levels of VET
The Productivity Commission’s recent recommendation within its National Agreement for Skills and Workforce Development Review, Study Report to delegate the power to IRCs to commission updates to training packages and approve non controversial and minor changes to training packages will free-up the time of the AISC as well as assisting industry changes to be reflected in training more rapidly. 

Increased resources to improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of the AISC and training package developers undertake their roles will be necessary. This will contribute to the issue of timeliness of the delivery of up to date packages. 

At the individual business level, the majority of SMEs are unable to devote time to formal consultation input to the VET system. However at this level employers know what skills they need for entry level positions and directly engage with their employees around learning. With employers increasingly needing continuous re-skilling, they need to be closer to skills development and delivery so they can advise on the shorter shelf life of skills, new skills and the changing mix of skills needed.

A step change is needed to embed co-involvement cultures and assist both industry and the training sector. Ai Group has previously called for support for co-located industry-training ‘hubs’ which could be physical or virtual. Importantly, built into these hubs would be a formal process for employer input and feedback to skills development and review through the VET system. Bottom-up engagement would be designed to feed into the other levels of the system.

Industry training hubs are best if they are organic, multi-partner – large and small companies, unis, TAFEs, schools, govt - involving any or all of training, placements, projects, competitions, research/incubation, co-location. 

Response:

Yes

Response:

No response provided.

Response:

The current system which silos skills development within industries must change to reflect the work environment: shifts in skills sets are occurring within roles, changing combinations of knowledge, abilities and characteristics as the creep of machines continues. Blurred occupational boundaries will increasingly lead to hybrid occupations that are mixes of current professions and trades. 

The system must implement more sophisticated mapping across qualifications to identify common skills across sectors and integrate these. This activity must be implemented throughout the system, going further than the previous projects that explored cross-sector skills. Establishing a horizontal structure to integrate advice across industry groupings and training packages will enable this. The result will be workers who are better equipped with skills that can be applied across sectors, over time and be topped up as needed through broad availability of units and skill sets.

To support workers being equipped with skills that can be applied across different jobs, there should be an allowance for units and skill sets to exist without the need for them to be included in a qualification.  This would mean units and skill sets are identifiable in such areas as foundation skills and creates a platform for a relationship with the general capabilities framework under development.  

Response:

Moving into the future Australia needs a coherent framework of micro and longer credentials, adaptable by industry and individuals, underpinned by a modern qualifications framework, and which better connects the tertiary education sectors.  

As industry has moved through the COVID-19 environment, focussed training programs that are aligned with specific work opportunities have been crucial. The demand from industry for readily available, short form training, reflects various re-skilling and up-skilling needs primarily arising as a result of increasing digital transformation. The crisis identified the need for short courses at a number of different AQF levels; it has highlighted the need for access to information on offerings for the public; for coherence in offerings; and for information on where credentials sit/how they stack in relation to specific qualifications. 

Training products, including the guidelines to develop them, have become increasingly complex. They need to be re-focused as a set of skills standards that are needed to perform the roles that currently exist, including those in transition, and those identified as ones likely to exist in modern workplaces. This approach to simplify and rename what are currently called training packages could also potentially allow for innovative and differential approaches to curriculum and assessment at the provider or jurisdictional level.

The term ‘training package’ does not adequately describe the role these core elements play, and indeed can be misleading. The vocational system is purposely not curriculum based. A system based on skill standards delivers a focus on outcomes and reinforces its practical and relevant approach to modern workplaces.  

A redesign of the Unit of Competency construct should allow for units to be more broadly based and focussed upon the combination of skills required to perform and overtime gain proficiency in a job. 

Looking forward, the recommendations of the Australian Qualifications Framework Review, all accepted by the Australian Government, will open the door to a welcome re-imagining of qualifications. Qualifications will increasingly need to be designed differently, packaged differently and be accessible across contexts in many more varied and timely ways. They need to be able to support and build upon the dynamic and fluid combination of skills and knowledge. Qualifications will also not necessarily be assembled hierarchically. Individuals will access qualifications and skill sets over their working life to meet the demands for critical reskilling and upskilling.

Ideally vocational qualifications under the new framework will be designed and developed in a way that organises knowledge and skills and that enables individuals to gain, retain or build upon meaningful work. They would have a purposeful balance between technical and generic skills, and knowledge, all of which could be developed through an engaging applied learning pedagogy. They would be nationally relevant and accessible. They could be completed in entirety or accessed via meaningful groupings or skill sets allowing for shorter forms of training/micro-credentials to be brought together in a qualification linked to an occupation or a career. And they would set an individual up to commence their career, add to an existing career or assist with changing career.

Response:

N/A