- Related consultation
- Submission received
-
-
Does the role of industry need to be strengthened or expanded across the VET system? Why/why not?
- What does industry engagement mean to you?
- How can industry be encouraged to connect with and use the VET system? What does this look like?
- Are there any roles for industry in the VET system that are not covered or outlined in the case for change?
-
Response:
The role of industry does need to be strengthened. It is important that each industry has control of determining skill sets for their own industry. Industries with common skills sets that are transferrable across both industries should be forced to collaborate on determining common training packages. There is also concern that common skill-sets, without cross industry coordination, will diverge and develop in isolation, creating different training requirements for different industries for the same skill set. Industry engagement is the opportunity for industry associations to provide feedback and help shape policies, training courses in the VET sector. Industry associations are the most qualified to understand the skill demands of their industry. The VET system would have to be reliable, easy to use and provide quality results. Funding must be easily accessible and adequately support the courses offered. Some qualifications should be mandatory. We cannot identify any roles not covered in the Case for Change. Our preference is to keep it simple by not increasing the complexity of the current system or place further burden on industry (and trainees).
Are you aware of the current industry-leadership arrangements led by the Australian Industry and Skills Commission?
-
Response:
Yes
-
How effective are the current industry engagement arrangements in VET in meeting your needs?
- What works well and what could be improved? How could it be improved?
- How well are you (or your organisation) represented by these arrangements?
- How well do current arrangements allow collaboration across industry sectors on common workforce and skills needs?
-
Response:
The arrangements are industry driven and they consider the cross sector common skills sets. The process of engaging with industry and stakeholders is quite solid. Improvements are needed to shorten the length of time that it takes to get a change approved. Collaboration across industry is one aspect that does work well. However, there are situations where an industry which has a common skill set has developed a training package of a lower standard. For example: Agricultural (AHC) package – Machinery units are linked closely to the RIIs but they are not sufficient to meet operational requirements in RII industries. It needs to be improved across industry, and even outside of package. The silos need to be broken down so there is a standard across all sectors for the same skills set. Employers need more education and transparency – they are often not notified about changes that affect them – email updates bi-annually are not sufficient. This could be a bigger problem under the concept of SO’s.
What can be done to drive greater collaboration across industries to broaden career pathways for VET graduates and maximise the workforce available to employers?
- How can workers be equipped with skills that can be applied across different jobs?
- How can industry support this through the VET system?
- How can we break down silos and improve collaboration across industry groups?
-
Response:
Build on the current system. Common skill sets must be recognized across industries. Consistent coordinated independent review across industries will identify these skill sets and changing needs. Build on the IRC concept to be more flexible with their coverage and representation. Currently, we feel workers are at the mercy of their employer. Workers need to be able to find and access information about industry qualifications/job profiling rather than having to go through their employer. Build on the current system. Common skill sets must be recognized across industries. Consistent coordinated independent review across industries will identify these skill sets and changing needs. Build on the IRC concept to be more flexible with their coverage and representation.
Are qualifications fit-for-purpose in meeting the needs of industry and learners now and into the future? Why/why not?
- Are the different needs of industry and learners effectively considered in designing qualifications in the current system? What works well and why?
- Are there issues or challenges with the way qualifications are currently designed? What are they and what could be done to address these?
-
Response:
Qualifications needs to be regularly reviewed. Evolving innovative practices in technology are having greater impact on industry. Therefore, training organisations can learn from each other around developing technology and potential new skill sets. A system that does not empower industry to monitor their own skill sets and collaborate and communicate with other industries with similar skill sets will not provide the best training package development. Collaboration across industry is one aspect that does work well. However, there are situations where an industry which has a common skill set has developed a training package of a lower standard. An issue which needs to be addressed is the requirements of the different stakeholders. Sometimes industry and the employer of people with skill sets, is at odds with those stakeholders who engage those employers. Industry needs more control in overcoming conflicting expectations of training package development.
-
Are there any further issues in relation to improving industry engagement in the VET sector that you would like to provide feedback on?
-
Response:
There are inconsistencies with the funding arrangements by the States and Territories. Currently only the qualifications and competencies are consistent nationwide. The Federal government allocates funds to the State governments, but it is distributed differently in each state. A trainee or apprentice should be funded and supported equally across all States and Territories. Overall, the system already in place works reasonably well, but does require some improvement.