Watts, Christopher - Australian Council of Trade Unions

Response:

The role of industry absolutely must be strengthened in the VET system. The VET system must become a truly industry-led system rather than one in which industry is nominally ‘engaged’ but ultimately has little influence. Industry, meaning employers, employer peaks and unions, are best placed to ensure that the VET system is correctly placed to meet the future and current needs of business and workers. Industry has a shared interest in the VET system producing skilled, safe workers and doing so reliably and efficiently. All other parties to the VET system, including government, have different and at times antithetical motivations such as profiting from training delivery, reducing expenditure or maintaining their regulatory power. Industry is the only actor in the VET system whose aims align with the purpose of that system, the training of skilled workers, and on that basis alone should be the primary voice in determining the direction of the system. 

Response:

Yes

Response:

Current industry engagement arrangements in the VET system are patently insufficient and appear designed to either prevent or ameliorate industry influence over the VET system. As an example, the Industry Reference Committees, on which many of our affiliates are represented, should function as the singular voice of industry on training package design and the setting of occupations standards. What happens in many cases however is that industry, represented by the various members of the IRC come to a conclusion and then are prevented from implementing that conclusion either by the federal bureaucracy or by the representatives of the state governments – who have effective veto power over system change. While this doesn’t occur in all cases, the fact that it is possible at all puts the lie to the idea that the IRCs represent industry leadership of VET. 
Unfortunately, the IRCs represent the highpoint of industry engagement with VET. Departmental consultation with industry is typically cursory and often clearly relates to decisions that have already been made. In most cases it is clear that we are being asked our view clearly as a box-ticking exercise and that input is not being taken seriously or received seriously. 
Its also worth stating that the AISC, which is listed as an industry engagement arrangement above, is neither consultative nor industry based. The AISC is dominated by the state governments and has only one employer representative and no employee representatives. It is not a body which is responsive to or representative of industry. 

Response:

The most effective method to ensure that graduates have a wide range of skills is to ensure that they have access to full qualifications through the VET system and that those qualifications represent standards set by industry experts, both employers and unions, which are up to date and designed for the future of work. 

Response:

As outlined above, we believe the greatest weakness in the current system of qualification design are the significant and persistent obstacles that are in place to those qualifications reflecting the views and needs of industry and not those of state & federal governments and for-profit RTOs. It is our view that any failure to be fit for purpose is the direct result of this issue. 

Response:

While not an additional issue, it must be emphasised that this process, the discussion paper and our ability to provide submissions on it perfectly encapsulates the complete failure of current arrangements to engage with industry. Firstly, the creation of skillsreform.gov.au has significantly fractured consultation processes – meaning there are multiple process running at once and those processes are much harder to follow. This has also shifted the burden of taking part in these process from government, who used to have to approach industry to seek feedback, to industry itself. This is achieved by government merely placing consultations on the website with no major announcement and expecting time-poor industry representatives to find it and respond. 
Secondly, consultation is ingenuine and lacks detail. Stakeholders are being asked to respond to a ‘discussion paper’ which is a scant few pages and almost entirely lacks detail. They are asked to do so through a webform which limits the length of our responses and which requires answers to specific questions rather than allowing a broader range of views to be expressed. This is not genuine consultation – it is box ticking. 
Finally, when the ACTU and our affiliates were invited to a consultation meeting, excepting to be able to provide input on industry engagement with VET, we were instead ambushed with what appeared to be a completely fleshed-out model for replacing the IRC system. We were not told how this model had been developed, clearly it had not occurred with our input, and were also told that we could not have a copy of the model to share with other affiliates who had been unable to attend the, hastily organised, meeting nor to consider it more closely. Instead, we were told that we were expected to provide feedback immediately in that one-hour meeting on this proposal that we had only just seen for the first time. When we expressed a desire to provide additional feedback, we were directed to this discussion paper which, as discussed earlier, lacks detail and contains precisely no information about the proposed IRC restructure or indeed that such a restructure was being considered. 
In short this consultation process has been needlessly restrictive, hastily thrown-together, lacking fundamental detail and has completely failed to address the Government’s real plans or agenda. Perhaps the worst single element is that, after many years of engagement with this Government on this issue, none of this is surprising.