- 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:
Yes, absolutely. Industry engagement means that industry is consulted during the creation and design of qualifications and units of competency. It does not mean that the industry consultation process is controlled by TAFE. TAFE is not industry. I recently participated in a Technical Advisory Group for my trade. [CONTENT REDACTED]. The decisions were dominated by TAFE representatives who were only interested in making the course easier for themselves to deliver, and had not consulted with employers or the industry. It led to the new training package being out-of-date, irrelevant and unworkable from the moment it went live. Industry should also be involved in the auditing process of RTOs. Currently RTOs are audited by persons who have no idea about the industry the RTO services. This leads to too much focus on issues which result in a non-compliance, instead of the actual question of whether students are competent for their industry. It is too easy for RTOs to hide behind paper-work. It is much harder to hide non-compliance from someone who is from the industry and understands what competence looks like.
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:
I was recently part of Technical Advisory Committee for a qualification upgrade and it was a terrible experience for all concerned. The government had an agenda to remove qualifications that they considered were not being used or needed. I was told this was being done simplify the training package development. Several qualifications were deleted even though no consultation had been done with industry as to WHY these qualifications were not being used. The reality was that these qualifications and training are badly needed by industry, but RTOs were not offering the qualifications. RTOs are driven by funding arrangements, not by industry, and so were offering qualifications that were funded, but inappropriate. [CONTENT REDACTED]. Very little industry consultation had been done, and decisions were made with very little evidence or data to support it. The majority of people on the TAGs are not qualified themselves, and have no industry currency. Thirdly, the organisation facilitating the development or a training package must be a non-profit, and representative of industry. [CONTENT REDACTED]. Fourthly, RTOs should be audited by industry, not just ASQA. It is too easy to hide behind paperwork, but it is not as easy to hide behind students who are not competent.
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:
There are many soft skills that are common to most training packages. For example, perhaps the development of several units on soft skills would allow these skills to be recognised and used across different training packages. For example, almost every training package has units on: Communication in the workplace Sustainability Planning and preparing The development of simplified versions of these units would allow these units to be recognised across multiple training packages. For example, the units on communication are very similar in both the CPC and RII training package, and therefore it would help if they shared common soft skill units, as workers often transfer between the two industries.
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:
I was recently part of Technical Advisory Committee for a qualification upgrade and it was a terrible experience for all concerned. The government had an agenda to remove qualifications that they considered were not being used or needed. I was told this was being done simplify the training package development. Several qualifications were deleted even though no consultation had been done with industry as to WHY these qualifications were not being used. The reality was that these qualifications and training are badly needed by industry, but RTOs were not offering the qualifications. RTOs are driven by funding arrangements, not by industry, and so were offering qualifications that were funded, but inappropriate. [CONTENT REDACTED]. Very little industry consultation had been done, and decisions were made with very little evidence or data to support it. The majority of people on the TAGs are not qualified themselves, and have no industry currency. Thirdly, the organisation facilitating the development or a training package must be a non-profit, and representative of industry. [CONTENT REDACTED]. Fourthly, RTOs should be audited by industry, not just ASQA. It is too easy to hide behind paperwork, but it is not as easy to hide behind students who are not competent.
-
Are there any further issues in relation to improving industry engagement in the VET sector that you would like to provide feedback on?
-
Response:
No response provided.