Anonymous - 29

Response:

Industry must sit at the heart of this system.  The role of industry could always be strengthened yet training package development policy and elongated endorsement processes tend to disenfranchise industry rather than encourage engagement.  Simply, the process is often more of a time commitment than industry is able to give.

Industry at present is highly reliant on industry associations/peak bodies to represent their interests, which, if managed properly is appropriate.  Expecting extensive individual employer participation is optimistic given that training is just one of many functions that employers need to consider. 

IRCs were formed to represent the various industries within their sector and members are appointed based on their industry connections, experience and expertise. They play a large part in defining job roles and functions but are largely unable to influence the delivery and assessment of competencies which are strictly defined by policy.  

Many industries work well with RTOs to achieve training outcomes specific to their needs.  Numerous RTOs offer rigorous, quality training with the best interests of industry and learners at the core of their delivery. RTOs should be recognised for the expertise they can and do bring to training package development whilst bearing in mind that the cost and practicality of delivery is of concern to them.  RTOs that perform well and provide meaningful training package development input are those that have strong industry affiliations and are able to work with industry to contextualise training to suit the jurisdiction/environment where the training is being delivered.  They also have industry connections to enable workplace training, not only where it is mandated, but where it has obvious advantages to the learner. 

In both instances, employer and RTO engagement, it is important to recognise that there are some bad apples, but in general there is not a problem to be fixed.

It is important to ensure that IRC members are representing dynamic industry sectors and are not there to protect the status-quo. They should be cognisant of the latest industry trends and be prepared to develop training for future practitioners.  This necessitates a redesign of industry groupings to be based, not on historical boundaries, but on value chains.  The dynamics of any system always lies on its boundaries with another system – the same is true in industry.

Response:

Yes

Response:

The high levels of interest and engagement in the system is a strong positive that needs to be built on.  Industry are interested and engaged – but increasingly this is being eroded and currently stagnated.  

Committee preferences and shifting interpretations of policy frustrate the training package development process and disenfranchise genuine input from industry.  Similarly, requirements for legacy data sets to prove a case for change ensure that the system is going forward by looking in the rear-view mirror.  

Overlays of processes on top of policy requirements slow down the system.  Quality panel sign off and compliance to an activity order should be sufficient to grant approval of a product.  The current system preferences the last squeaky wheel ignoring and disenfranchising the preceding consultation processes and industry input.

What could be improved

•	Less sign off processes – potentially via an independent approval body with the States encouraged to agree to terms that don’t leave them with individual veto power.  The safety valve could be the Minister’s sign off
•	Greater faith and adherence to policy as a means of guiding the process and measuring compliance
•	Revised systems and structure to ensure a forward focus
•	Stronger industry voice through professional boards
•	Less interference from vested interests – opportunity and transparency of engagement and involvement of key stakeholders could be written into policy, including a clearly defined role for unions and State Training Authorities

Response:

A restructure of industry grouping to value chains would discourage silo thinking of Industry Reference Committees keen to protect their patch.  This would also place focus on the interactions and morphing of industry sectors into connected chains – thus giving greater visibility to career pathways and movement of skills to meet the transforming needs of industry.

A solid starting point for new industry groups would be the development of a document akin to Singapore’s Industry Transformation Maps.  ITMs integrate productivity improvement, skills development, innovation and internationalisation into a single document that is implemented in partnership with industry to achieve its vision.  This approach would drive collaboration

Response:

Having undergone a transition to the 2012 Standards for Training Packages, which involved a thorough review of all components, the qualifications are fit-for-purpose. That is, fit for purpose in describing the Elements and Performance Criteria, Performance Evidence, Knowledge Evidence and Assessment Conditions, as delivered by its custodian Industry Reference Committee.  

The subsequent use by industry and training organisations as fit for purpose is variable.  Where industry and RTOs work together to contextualise training, they should find the qualifications fit for purpose in delivering student outcomes which meet industry requirements.  Where RTOs are solely concerned with conducting delivery to comply with an ASQA audit, the qualifications may be less fit for industry’s purpose.  The pressure to meet regulatory demands does not necessarily foster quality delivery, nor does delivering to a price.

Although the qualifications have been fairly recently updated and are current, the system doesn’t easily allow for future skills needs.  IRCs are expected to present statistical information to support the development of training products when often that data doesn’t exist as the IRC is planning for future needs based on industry knowledge and consultation.

Response:

It should be recognised that the system is not broken (as noted by the Productivity Commission) – employer satisfaction is in the 80% mark and there is a tendency to dwell on the negative not celebrate the success.