McDonald, Terry - Visy

Response:

It is difficult for the IRC to be asked how industry can "be encouraged to connect with and use the VET system" given the almost complete lack of engagement by the VET sector with the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing industry. What happens when a system that is supposed to be serving the skills needs of Australian industries doesn't engage with an industry? The PPM industry is trying to engage with the VET system, however the VET system does not seem to be trying to engage with the PPM Industry. 

The PPM IRC comprises of and has brought together employers who have confirmed that: training is critical to the industry; formal training is better than informal because of improved knowledge exchange, portability and recognition of qualifications; and the barriers to PPM use of VET are the issues of thin markets, RTO delivery issues, costs and lack of flexible delivery options to ensure there is no lost productivity. The industry continues to train and invest in training. It continues to use the Training Package to design in-house training and informal external training to support its unique processes. 

Industry has not decided to stop using VET. Instead, VET has decided to stop servicing PPM because the model that works best for industry is too hard, expensive, risky from an ASQA point of view and lacks financial viability. While these are critical skills for Australia, as amply demonstrated during 2020, pulp and paper manufacturing is not an industry with existing high numbers of enrolments and employees. It is a relatively small employment but capital-intensive industry, usually based in regional areas, which requires highly skilled workers because of the technicalities of the work.  

Attrition rates in the industry are very low. The industry faces a significant challenge to attract new employees in the next decade as a result of an aging workforce and issues around regional employment, and is looking to the VET sector to support this transition. 

However, there has been no indication that the VET system is prepared to act on the views of or engage with the pulp and paper industry and seek solutions to the barriers outlined above. 

The critical importance and specialised nature of the industry was highlighted in 2020 throughout the pandemic – yet there was still only minimal engagement, and none that resulted in support or potential solutions other than the approval of a project to rationalise the Training Package.

Whilst the IRC agree that there can be some rationalisation through updating the PPM Training Package after nearly a decade – the challenge for the IRC is how to work with the VET system to facilitate use of and access to the PPM Training Package. 

The IRC at its regular meetings continually discusses and seeks to solve problems around VET policy and structures that seem to inhibit engagement with VET. These include restrictions around RTO 3rd party arrangements, increased requirements for workplace trainers and assessors and access to training and assessment materials to assist RTOs to service the sector. 

Response:

Yes

Response:

Industry needs are not being met by current industry engagement arrangements as they not resulting in the delivery of desired VET training in PPM. The PPM IRC has brought together industry leaders, has conducted industry research, has developed projects to update the training package, and has provided extensive information on the issues facing VET delivery through submission of Skills Forecasts and Annual updates

PPM IRC proposals to update the Training Package in 2018 and 2019 to address priority industry issues were not approved. These decisions were not based on the merits of the proposals but on a lack of enrolments. The IRC cannot influence RTO decisions around delivery of the PPM Training Package. 

The IRC believes it has performed very well in all the circumstances, while recognising that the results have not met industry expectations as RTOs still fail to provide training into the sector. The IRC is well-supported by the SSO and by ForestWorks within the confines of the program under the IRC Operating Framework. That support is limited to the funded activities under the SSO contract, which relate to the development of the templated Skills Forecasts/Annual Updates and Training Package product development. 

The SSO and ForestWorks have worked with the IRC to come up with a strategy to work with the VET sector without funding. This included bringing together Pulp and Paper Manufacturing businesses throughout Australia demonstrating a commitment from the industry to do what was needed to get the training and training support needed by the industry. 

Despite this commitment, the AISC gave approval to the project work requested, and since then have listed PPM units for unilateral deletion. They will require evidence of enrolments before approving any of the outcomes of the project and have set in place a process to delete units and qualifications with no or low enrolments on a yearly basis. 

The PPM IRC would suggest that its ability to get the major players in a room to discuss VET indicates that the IRC represents industry well and has strong networks throughout industry. 

Given the current challenges in obtaining PPM industry training, it is unlikely that any PPM CEO’s are likely to prioritise collaboration with other industries to benefit the VET system. Collaboration to meet the needs of the VET system is not collaboration to meet the needs of industry. There has been no evidence provided to the industry or the IRC that a more collaborative approach to meet the desire of the VET system will add any benefit to the industry. 

The IRC has demonstrated that we have valuable industry networks and access to excellent industry intelligence and would appreciate greater support from Government in achieving our training goals.

Response:

PPM operates mainly in regional areas. The challenge of retaining population is more important to the community and economic health of regional areas than providing learners with qualifications that help them get jobs in cities. There is a clear metropolitan bias in this "collaboration" thinking, which is all very good for office- and knowledge-based work but has little relevance to meeting the needs of regional businesses. It is difficult to see how broader qualifications designed to meet delivery needs rather than employer needs can actually work to the benefit of employers: even if successful, the ramifications for regional communities and economies could be very significant. More consideration should be given to these issues before setting on a path that may increase difficulties for Regional Australia. 

PPM is an industry that provides significant levels of full and part-time employment, with associated work conditions. It is an important economic contributor in local communities. The AISC and STAs are asking PPM to support the reform of a VET system that does not currently serve regional communities well in ways that are unlikely to see benefits for regional employers.

The PPM IRC currently works with other IRCs involved in forestry, timber, and wood products, through the association with the SSO and ForestWorks, as well as through other industry associations. While the skills are mostly very different, many of the issues facing these industries are similar, including a lack of access to VET training delivery  through RTOs able to deliver in a viable manner to industry expectations This would appear to be evidence to support the contention that collaboration at this level does not, of itself, lead to more enrolments and greater training delivery.

The PPM IRC would like to see the evidence from the AISC and STAs that higher enrolment numbers across broader qualifications leads to outcomes that address industry skills needs, employer engagement with VET and improvements in productivity. It would seem from an industry perspective that if these approaches were that effective, industry would have adopted them in other fields of operations and this would be driving the VET system, rather than the VET system trying to drive industry towards a set solution.

Response:

Current PPM qualifications and Units of Competency are not fit-for-purpose. In 2020 the AISC agreed to a project that will make them fit-for-purpose. The AISC has also indicated it needs to see evidence from industry about future enrolments. Given the lack of access to VET for the PPM industry over many years, the PPM IRC wonders what actions the AISC and STAs are going to take to assist with those access issues and build trust within industry that engagement with VET will be supported. 

Given this background, the PPM IRC is intrigued by this interest in the fit-for-purpose state of qualifications from the AISC and STAs. From the perspective of PPM employers, it appears that over the past few years, qualifications were allowed to degrade and become unsuitable, and VET policy almost ensured that training provision was unviable for RTOs to this sector. 

The biggest factor that could change the suitability of qualifications is to place trust in industry intelligence and the work of industry-supported mechanisms, including the IRCs, and peak/industry bodies to work with the VET system not just to ensure that training products are fit for purpose, but to work across the whole VET sector to ensure access, use and benefits of the Australian VET system. 

This would be to acknowledge and work on the reality that unsuitable qualifications and industry issues are not the only reasons that there are no or low enrolments or a lack of industry engagement with the VET sector. The IRC would argue they are not even the most important, with the critical issues lying in RTO viability, VET regulation and access to formal training and assessment.

Response:

No response provided.