Anonymous - 20 - Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Australian Government

Related consultation: Submissions - Skills Reform: Improving industry engagement and reforming qualifications in Vocational Education and Training discussion paper
Submission received: 24 February 2021

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:

In the Current climate (re Covid) there has been an enormous increase in demand for our time as managers. There is a much greater % of time spent in digital contact and meetings over the digital platforms. This is now out of control and it is impossible to meet all the demands on our time. Information and collaboration with industry is key to ensuring that the VET system is responsive to industry needs however the engagement is now a major cost to the industry as there are too many demands. (RTOs, Industry skills Organsiations (training package development, requests for input in reform research etc..). It is now too easy to send out requests for information to industry by "Email bombing". The requests take industry away from the imediate needs of the managers' businesses

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:

Reduce the demands on everyone's time coordinate a response so that we are not answering the same questions on so many platforms. We are rapidly approaching overload. Every time there is a reform to the Australian VET system there is ALWAYS an added complexity which makes everything harder. We have broken down each trade / qualification into so many granular segments  (units) that it is now impossible to keep up.
eg understanding electrical systems does not need a new unit every time there is a new electrical component / system designed. Electrical components still work the same. 
The vet system should train people in a skill set that allows them to work on the systems and then be able to apply their skills and knowledge and research the repair and installation techniques for the new equipment as required.
as an example of this;
A experience Auto electrician who has always worked continuously in the industry since the 1970s IS able to work on any new electrical system because he can source the tech information and apply his skills to teh task at hand. He does not need another unit of competency before he can work on something like an ADAS system or hybrid vehicle or engine management system.... none of these systems were invented in the 70's.

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:

Reduce the complexity in the training packages. maybe return to modules or a systems type of approach to training packages as having a continual stream of UOCs that are developed with new technology means that technicians can never keep up with the training package rules which often translate into license requirements.
Simplify the qualifications do not add microscopic changes. The current rules ensure that Training Packages can NEVER be adequate for specific technology changes.
The vehicles can and will continue to change.. The workers need the skills to adapt to that change by themselves. They should NOT need to change the qualification / units every time there is a tech change. The vehicle is still fundamentally the same. Trades should be more about the ability to work safely within the ever changing environment and adapt their knowledge and develop the skills.

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:

No, They are not fit for purpose. Many other countries and nations still use a training system that is Module or system based rather than developed on the  UOC level.  eg. Why should there be a Unit for basic electrical circuits and another for soldering wires.... this should all be part of the same eg Electrical systems.

The granular make up of the qualification and of the units prevents the training package design from keeping pace with technology. IT also prevent the RTOs from developing new resources for the new technology as their time is spent keeping pace with the new revamped units and completing paperwork for compliance rather than developing skills, resources and knowledge for the new technology.
The biggest problem meeting the needs of each unit is that there is major overlaps in the elements from unit to unit. You will find the same wording for the same element duplicated in most units. The RTO then has to duplicate the collection of evidence for that element every time. This is a waist!

Are there any further issues in relation to improving industry engagement in the VET sector that you would like to provide feedback on?

Response:

Relook at the base concept of competency based progression and the competencies that make up a Qualification. If the Qualification is the trade and the tradesperson is the master then build a system that creates an ADAPTABLE and capable workforce. The trades' person has always had to adapt to new technology.
The blacksmith became the mechanic without any units of competency. The Blacksmith who repaired Henry's Model T developed his skills as needed because he was a tradesperson. Even to the point where they had to work with the new pneumatic tyres. The system needs to develop people who continue their learning throughout life and know how to adapt. Our current system is built on the premise that you cannot do the work until you have the unit.    A current example of this is the stupid determination that has been made to make a comment that the mechanics cannot work on any part of a hybrid or Electric vehicle unless they possess the units of that skills set... This is stupid. I will guarantee that there would be NIL tyre fitters with these skills sets. This is true of all of EV and Hybrid Vehicle Systems like steering, suspension etc..