Semos, Nathan - Fire Protection Association Australia (FPA Australia)

Response:

In an ideal world the current IRC model would operate effectively if it was established with the correct alignment of industries, rather than based on a roll over of the previous skills councils arrangements.

Lumping similar industries together may appear to be a workable model, but if these industries have little in common, or the training packages relevant to a specific industry is spread across multiple IRC's then the model becomes fragmented and not effective.

The Fire Protection industry finds itself in this very state with no less than four IRC's having a "say" on how the industry's training packages should function.

For example there are fire related qualifications across the Property Services, Construction, Electrotechnology and Public Safety training packages.

An efficient model would allow for the establishment of either a separate IRC dedicated to fire safety / fire protection or the creation of a sub-irc that was afforded responsibility for the all training qualifications embedded across the four different training packages, whilst maintaining "ownership" within each IRC

Response:

Yes

Response:

Industry engagement should function well where there are Industry bodies engaged in the process.  Recently the industry engagement process for the development / review of the fire protection inspection and testing qualifications was largely executed by the peak industry body, rather than by the SSO.

This model worked well, however the industry body was not afforded any funds to facilitate this engagement, resulting in a less than ideal investment in time and resources.  A better model would allow for the SSO's to outsource engagement to industry bodies.

Response:

As mentioned earlier the establishment of multi IRC "working Groups" dedicated to a specific industry would likely lead to a more integrated model 

Response:

NO!!!!

The Property Services IRC and specifically the Technical Advisory Group led by the peak industry body for fire protection (FPA Australia) spent 3 years developing desperately needed qualifications and units of competency during the review of the fire protection inspection and testing qualifications.

This work involved multiple face to face engagement sessions and numerous surveys and other engagement activities with industry and key stakeholders.

At the end of the process there was majority support for the improved training package that included two new qualifications, 30 new units of competency and 28 updated units of competency.  This project should have been a success.

However, because a single industry body / industrial body opposed the qualification [CONTENT REDACTED], all of the work has been despatched to the garbage bin.

This highlights a broken system and is a complete deterrent to individuals and organisations getting involved in the development of qualifications.

This example should be a source of embarrassment for the AISC, however some how they believe they have found a "solution".

This might be true if the objective of the ASIC was to destroy the work of the IRC's, endorse outdated and insufficient training packages, erode community safety outcomes, show complete disregard to the IRC and industry engagement processes and pander to self interest and protectionism.

Response:

No response provided.