Anonymous - 27

Response:

Industry engagement should be at the forefront during the development of training products and systems that effectively support workplace learning.  At present the development of training packages is often influenced by academics or government with minimal understanding of the requirements at an industry level. Whilst industry can prove challenging to engage at times this is largely attributable to the lack of perceived value in the training and the disregard shown for industry feedback when provided.
Industry engagement will be more successful when they are involved in the discussion from the onset and this includes not only the composition of qualifications and and skill sets but how this can be integrated within organisations.  If industry are engaged at this stage they will be focused on the value training can add which can then be utilised to promote it to the wider sector.
In addition if the key people are to be involved in the process they must be remunerated for their time.  The key people such as HR  or L&D Managers are usually under significant pressures and whilst willing, are often unable to afford time to participate however remuneration of this demonstrates value and can assist with backfill.
The role of the State ITAB where in situ is critical to industry engagement as they are the critical link between the Government, RTO's and industry.  Due to the development of long standing trust based relationships with industry they are able to efficiently advocate on their behalf with a a sound knowledge of what is and isn't viable from a training perspective.  Given the complexity of the VET system they provide the conduit that leads to outcomes that are able to be implemented.
The previous ANTA model in which State and National ITAB's played a critical role should be reviewed and considered to improve industry engagement and training activity.

Response:

Yes

Response:

At present  the current structure supports does not strong industry in engagement particularly in Social Assistance and Allied Health. Many of the current IRC's have vacancies which equates to under representation and where there is representation this if often not reflective of the industry demographics, inclusive of regional and remote and dominated by the East Coast.  In addition the membership is often well intentioned but far removed from the practicalities of front line workforce issues and training engagement. This become particularly evident during the release of the recent Aboriginal Health Worker training package which has the potential the critically reduce this workforce in WA and the NT. In addition the AISC is often removed from these issues which was evident in their recent decision to overrule the recommendations and the IRC responsible for Training and Assessment (TAE) and include an assessment unit which has negatively impacted the VET workforce.
At present State ITAB's have varying degrees of engagement on IRC's however are not formally recognised as a key part of the industry engagement process. This is evident when advice has been provided to industry that a combined response facilitated and provided by the State ITAB, which always involves consultation with multiple stakeholders across WA, has the same weight as an organisational one. Whilst it is pleasing to note the newly formed SO structure sees the value in the ITAB network the current structure does not and often appears to view them as a threat.  This has potentially arisen due the the response provided during the training review process which aligns with industry requirements but appears not to match the training products proposed.
In regards to cross sector collaboration a silo approach still exists which could be overcome via engagement with the ITAB network.  Once again in the development of the recent mental health skill set it is evident that as a business unit little consideration has been given to the need to collaborate with the mental health sector to ensure this forms part of delivery arrangements.

Response:

By reducing the level detail in the knowledge evidence and performance criteria in the units of competence and referring only to the need for contextualisation this will support greater portability.  This is particularly relevant for areas such as communication, digital literacy, OH&S and supervision.
Industry can support this by working collaboratively at a national level to identify areas of commonality and how these can then be contextualised.
The silos can be broken down by bringing diverse groups together to identify key skills and utilising the ITAB network at a state and national level to facilitate this.  The WA State Training Board is one example of how this can be achieved whereby information feed from 8 ITAB's can be reviewed and common themes around training identified to form their priorities.  Critical to this is simplifying the language and demonstrating the value add.

Response:

At present this does not take place instead it appears a band aid approach is more commonplace rather than an accurate analysis of job roles and how these have changed.  What need to occur is a national meeting of those who are aware of the key workforce issues but have an understanding of VET (ie L&D Managers, HR Managers, Supervisors) to identify the job roles and key skill and knowledge required. This process would identify areas of commonality then points of difference which could be reflected in core and elective packaging guidelines.
Qualifications also need to match what a worker currently undertakes and provide the opportunity to hone and develop areas of specialisation via skill sets.

Response:

No response provided.