Industry Engagement in Training Package Development

Training is an issue for the extractive industry in that it is a relatively small industry with a regionally located and mature aged work force. On 12 February 2013 the CMPA hosted an industry employers and educational providers’ forum to evaluate the way forward with respect to the industry accessing a training and assessment service that will add value to construction material businesses.

The key points from that forum were:

1. The training system and funding arrangements are a language all of its own and combine to present a formidable barrier for employers and employees seeking to engage with the training system.
2. Vocational training, assessment and qualifications arrangements must be based on typical jobs found throughout the industry.
3. Only a properly targeted training and assessment system will add value for industry in terms of upskilling to meet increasingly complex safety and compliance requirements.
4. Industry qualifications must reflect typical industry job profiles in order for upskilling initiatives to underpin systems/job redesign and associated productivity improvements.
5. Employer engagement with the training system is an investment where the potential pay-off is in terms of enhanced compliance, safety, productivity and staff morale.
6. The Certificate III (Resource Industry and Infrastructure) was seen as a typical example of an industry qualification that had only tenuous links to real quarry related jobs in the industry.
7. Existing and previous funding arrangements have skewed training towards Certificate III level training, at the expense of well targeted Certificate II level training, which has undermined the compliance, safety, staff morale and productivity improvements that might otherwise have been achieved.
8. The CMPA is committed to assisting the Government to develop an action plan that addresses the issues raised above and a road map towards implementing a training system that can add value for extractive businesses, and at the same time represents a much better investment for both Federal and State Governments in our future workforce.

The following are some of CMPA’s comments on the Federal Department of Education and Training’s paper the “Industry Engagement in Training Package Development – Discussion Paper, Towards a Contestable Model”.

Industry input into training development is extremely important with representatives being sourced for their areas of expertise. However, the issue of the ability for the representatives to devote the time necessary needs to be overcome.

There must be adequate funding of the process. The extractive industry is relatively small and extremely competitive and would not be able to contribute financially to the process. There is a real need to remove duplication of skills/ competencies spread across industry training packages.

Development of qualification profiles must be driven by real industry job profiles to ensure relevance. This can only be driven by industry input as opposed to bureaucratic/training provider input which has forced industry to conform and compromise in getting to the current training and assessment system that is available to industry now.

A key attribute to developing training is to be a recognised technical expert in the field. In addition, the ability to listen to and be driven by industry to ensure that there is in place a relevant training and assessment service that businesses view as a good investment.

The CMPA currently uses its membership to access technical expertise which is then provided in various submissions to SkillsDMC: in other words, ‘in-kind’ support.

The streamlined approach with industry engagement from the start of the qualification development cycle should lead to a reduction in red tape and compromises forced on industry by bureaucratic requirements.

This should lead to a reduction in the cost of training package development for Government.

There is currently a lack of publically available extractive industry training data. For instance:

• enrolments by qualification level and region (non-traineeship)
• successful completions by qualification and region (non-traineeship)
• training commencements by qualification and region
• training completions by qualification and region.

Additionally, information/data/reports are necessary that outline the outcomes of training in terms of productivity gains, improved compliance and improved safety regimes.

These reports are among other things, a promotional tool to promote training as a valuable investment by companies rather than a discretionary cost.

The preferred approach to developing training is Approach 3 with industry input into the Australian Industry Skills Committee and Designated VET Sector Bodies.

This seems to be the simplest approach to development of training that meets the needs of industry rather than having added layers of committees.

Approach 3: Government contracts for Designated VET Sector Bodies (See Diagram below)