Burgess, Mark - Electrical Trades Union (ETU)

Response:

The role of industry needs to be strengthened. Workers, through their union representatives, have had their representation significantly reduced and, in some cases, removed entirely since the most recent framework for training package development was introduced.

The ETU has a limited capacity to engage in the system. We hold positions on a number of Industry Reference Committees (IRC), however none of those spots are of an equal stake to employers or their associations. 

Furthermore, the requirements actively attempt to remove actual industry linkages through a requirement for Service Skills Organisations (SSO) to be independent bodies without industry links. Despite this absurd requirement, some SSO’s have managed to retain at least some industry perspective with several retaining board compositions of both employer and worker representation however many miss out entirely and the ETU has been excluded entirely from those that are supposed to deliberate on electrotechnology matters. 

Neither the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) or the ETU hold a seat on the peak body in Australia that oversees VET, the AISC and the incumbent members of that organisation make little effort to engage with representatives of workers on important training issues.

The capacity for unions to engage genuinely with the system in a meaningful bipartite manner has been stripped. Industry engagement works best when there is an equal partnership, and this process must be at the heart of any changes to the VET system.

Industry also has a role to play in quality assurance processes. There is inconsistency across delivery and assessment between Registered Training Organisations (RTO), despite there being nationally endorsed training products. 

To give industry confidence that they are getting graduates with the skills they need, independently set and nationally consistent assessment tools and procedures must be embedded into the apprenticeship system. The process should be overseen by industry in a bipartite manner.

Bureaucrats across State Training Authorities and the AISC are not always listening to the voice of industry. This was evident when the AISC rejected the Electrotechnology IRC proposal that trade qualifications within the UEE training package, such as the Certificate III in Electrotechnology be mandated as an apprenticeship. Despite the wishes of industry, employer associations and the ETU, this was bluntly rejected as being impossible.

Since this has happened, the MEM IRC has recently been told that they can mandate pathways as a part of their trade qualifications within the package.  Ironically, the AISC and Skills Ministers agreed to do this for the largely duplicated MEM31219 – Certificate III in Engineering – Industrial Electrician qualification, but refused to afford the Electrotechnology IRC the same opportunity for the industry preferred electrician qualification that has over 30,000 enrolments. It beggars belief. The inconsistencies are on display for all to see.

Response:

Yes

Response:

As mentioned in response to question one, under the current arrangements, the ETU is underrepresented across each level of the system, IRCs, SSOs and the AISC. 
Although we are well respected and our input is largely valued by employer associations and others, we do not have an equal stake or opportunity to contribute. 
The VET system is a shared social responsibility, one which we take very seriously. There is a significant amount of common ground between the ETU and employer associations when it comes to skills development and maintaining the strength of electrical trades and apprenticeships. Consensus is usually achieved. 
Under the current framework, bureaucratic process holds industry to ransom. By way of example, the Electrotechnology IRC is currently trying to fill a renewable expertise position within the committee to address the demand and projected growth across this area. [CONTENT REDACTED] the Clean Energy Council has been identified [CONTENT REDACTED] for this role who has a direct link to the renewable industry. Despite this, the AISC has determined that she is not able to sit on the IRC, and they have deferred reviewing any structure changes to IRCs at this point.

Response:

Electrical trade qualifications packaged from units of competency or competency standards are often unique to that particular vocation. This is for good reason; electrical work is inherently dangerous and hazardous and there is a strong need to ensure the industry is regulated and has a licenced outcome. 
Training products within the UEE package often contain linkages to electrical licensing and the Essential Performance Capabilities (EPC) set by the Electrical Regulatory Authorities Council (ERAC). 
Often, units within the UEE package are not suitable for use outside of the package. This is because the industry, electrical regulators and consumers do not want unlicensed, unskilled workers performing electrical work.
This is not to say that an electrician should not receive portable skills to work across various aspects of their trade, different enterprises or indeed jurisdictions, they absolutely should. The reality is, that you cannot grab components of the training products and place them into other components when there is a defined job role that is intrinsically linked to a holistic qualification and licensing arrangements.
Further, the overemphasis of privatisation of VET training and the corresponding defunding of TAFE has led to a situation of RTO’s invariably not offering the elective units of competency required by industry. Often the RTO do not even bother to tell the employer and apprentice what is actually available, instead focussing on delivering the bare minimum required to complete a qualification. The RTO’s are almost universally selecting the cheapest and quickest to deliver modules with the highest margin, irrespective of what industry actually needs.

Response:

Previously identified issues regarding the way qualifications are designed have been documented in this response. 
Speed to market of training products and the ability to adapt to new technology at the rate that is required is of concern. Often technological advanced electrical products will hit the market and vendor training is required to be able to certifiably instal those products. Fundamentally, the science of electricity is not going to change, but being able to adapt to new methods of programming or technology is. 
The major impediments are two-fold. Firstly, the imposed bureaucratic structure and removal of genuine bi-partite representation means training package development and augmentation is slow, unnecessarily cumbersome and absent genuine industry agreement on its usefulness.
Secondly, once finally developed and approved, RTO’s invariably do not offer the new training options and instead focus on marketing the cheaper and quicker existing modules for maximum return.

Response:

Largely, genuine industry engagement has been stripped from the VET sector. Restoring bipartisan structures would significantly improve the level of industry engagement and relevance to the system.