IND
DUSTRY
Y ENGA
AGEMEN
NT IN TR
RAINING
G PACK
KAGE
DEVELO
OPMEN
NT ‘TOW
WARDS A CONT
TESTAB
BLE MODEL’:
RES
SPONS
SE TO DISCUSS
SION PA
APER
D
DECEMBE
ER 2014
Represe
enting the Re
esources and
d Infrastructu
ure Industry for
f and on be
ehalf of:
endan Pearsson
Bre
Ch
hief Executive
e Officer
Min
nerals Counccil of Australiia
Tony Bauldersttone
Pre
esident/Actin
ng CEO
Civvil Contractorrs’ Federatio
on
Na
ational Office
Ken Slattery
Ch
hief Executive
e Officer
Ce
ement Concre
ete & Aggreg
gates Austra lia
Nig
gel Carpente
er
Ch
hief Executive
e Officer
Australian Drilliing Industry Association
A
L
Ltd
Jasson Kuchel
Ch
hief Executive
e
South Australia
an Chamber of Mines and
d Energy
Gre
eg Lane
Actting CEO
Qu
ueensland Re
esources Council
Gre
eg Sullivan
Dirrector – Policcy
Ne
ew South Wa
ales Minerals Council
Re
eg Howard-Smith
Ch
hief Executive
e
Ch
hamber of Minerals and Energy
E
We
estern Austra
alia
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Context ........................................................................................................................................ 4 VET Quality – training outcomes not the training system ........................................................... 9 Training Package reform – a Resources and Infrastructure Industry
approach ................................................................................................................................... 14 Specific commentary on Industry Engagement in Training Package
Development – Discussion Paper - Towards a Contestable Model.......................................... 24 An improved Resources and Infrastructure Sector Training Package ...................................... 32 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 34 Appendix A: Role and record of SkillsDMC .............................................................................. 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Resources and Infrastructure sectors welcome the opportunity to submit to the Department of
Industry’s ‘Industry Engagement in Training Package Development – Discussion Paper: Towards a
Contestable Model’.
We note that the Commonwealth is placing Vocational Education and Training (VET) at the heart of
the nation’s productivity and economic competitiveness task, underlining the need for quality
workforce skilling.
The Commonwealth has also acknowledged that this task is being compromised by variable provider
quality in the VET system, leading to variable quality in skilling outcomes.
This has certainly been the experience of the Australian Resources and Infrastructure sectors, where
the VET system receives ‘mixed reviews’.
The Commonwealth’s VET Reform agenda is to be commended for seeking to address this by
making industry central to the training quality equation. A job is the best guarantee of effective and
ongoing skills development as knowledge needs to be applied continually. Employment is provided
chiefly by industry.
The training outcome we seek is a worker being able to operate safely and competently in the
workplace, with broader workforce development outcomes as specified by the employer on top of this.
As such, Industry Training Packages are at the heart of the quality equation because they specify the
skills and competencies needed to operate safely and competently in the workplace. In the case of
the Resources and Infrastructure Industry, the Training Package is populated entirely by industry and
is truly ‘industry-led’. Companies are able to map training requirements against the competencies
outlined in the Package and tailor training according to enterprise requirements.
In summary, the Resources and Infrastructure sectors:

Support the Commonwealth’s VET Reform agenda, in particular putting industry at the heart
of the training equation – as industry is the chief provider of employment and skills,
competency is best attained in the workplace

Support the notion of focussing on ‘training outcomes’ rather than ‘the training system’

Support the current Review of Training Package stewardship and content as an opportunity to
further cement true industry-led training

Support the current focus of Industry Training Packages on workplace competencies, and
would be concerned if Industry Training Packages were changed to emphasise curriculum
and qualifications instead

Despite the variability in quality across Industry Skills Councils and their Training Packages,
contest the notion that all Industry Training Packages are broken, citing evidence that the
Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package is industry-responsive and works
well, with bureaucratic interference the major obstacle

Are concerned that some of the language in the Discussion Paper conflates competencies
and qualifications - although these two areas of demand (a full qualification as a policy
outcome and a set of skills as a company need) are not necessarily in tension

Consistent with the notion of industry-led training, believe that the appropriate stewardship of
the Resources and Infrastructure Training Package is crucial - it must remain under the
control of an entity whose mission is ‘of industry, for industry and by industry’

Agree that SkillsDMC is the most appropriate entity in this respect, fulfilling the following
attributes as outlined in the Discussion Paper:
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 1

-
Industry experience and connection – strong relationships with constituent industries,
including board and sector standing committee representation (70 per cent of Board
members derive from resources companies)
-
Technical competence – strong in-house expertise that would be hard to recreate ‘from
scratch’
-
National coverage – RII training package used nationally
-
Responsiveness to national policy – a strong voice in national skills discussions
-
Independence – neither conflicted nor commercially related to any training organisations
-
Cross-industry understanding - recognition of other industry drivers in training package
Propose that SkillsDMC be known as the Resources and Infrastructure Industry Skills
Competency Standards Council and that the Training Package be renamed the Resources
and Infrastructure Sector Skills Competency Standards Package, reflecting the crucial
emphasis on workplace skills competency
The Resources and Infrastructure sectors commend the Commonwealth for its overall direction
towards industry-led training outcomes, but believe the ‘price of industry led training is eternal
vigilance’ and caution that the Commonwealth must guard against the intrusion of supply-driven
and/or bureaucratic drivers into the skilling space.
We look forward to working with the Commonwealth to develop an improved Training Package for our
sectors, with the appropriate stewardship in an environment consistent with job-relevant, industry-led
training.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 2
INTRODUCTION
This submission is jointly drafted and supported by the Resources and Infrastructure sectors: namely
the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), Australian Drilling Industry Association (ADIA), the National
Office of the Civil Contractors Federation (CCF), Cement, Concrete and Aggregates Australia
(CCAA), the New South Wales Minerals Council (NSWMC), the Queensland Resources Council
(QRC), the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME) and the Chamber of Minerals
and Energy Western Australia (CME).
There is little disagreement among Resources and Infrastructure sector stakeholders about the
importance of quality vocational education and training for building both individual human capital and
broader economic capital.
The primary function of Vocational Education and Training (VET) is to provide high quality, relevant
and assessable education and training to enhance the skills and knowledge held by individuals,
enterprises and communities within a context of national productivity, including entry level training or
existing worker up-skilling and/or re-skilling.
However, there are ongoing concerns about provider quality in the VET system, including the quality
of training outcomes, agreed standards, monitoring and auditing and the availability of reliable
information on providers.
The industry, however, does not want a return to the days of predominantly provider-centric training,
including time-based approaches. While regulatory, inputs-based approaches have their place, the
industry favours a model that encompasses industry-driven, outcomes-based assessments of
training.
The Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package is a beacon for the Resources and
Infrastructure sectors in this environment.
The Training Package is developed against Industry specifications and is a vital tool in validating the
skills of the Resources and Infrastructure Industry workforce.
Companies are able to map training requirements against the competencies outlined in the Package
and tailor training according to enterprise requirements.
The Resources and Infrastructure sectors would be concerned if Industry Training Packages were
changed to emphasise curriculum rather than content. However, Industry Training Packages would
benefit from a ‘spring clean’ to remove accumulated inclusions by third parties over the years that
inhibits the effectiveness of Industry Training Packages for their intended purpose.
In this sense, the resources sector believes the appropriate stewardship of the RII Training Package
is crucial.
It must remain under the control of an entity whose mission is ‘of industry, for industry and by
industry’. It is the collective view of the co-signatories to this submission that SkillsDMC is the most
appropriate entity.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 3
CONTEXT
Economic environment
The mining industry is currently moving from a focus on investment and construction to one on
focused production and operations.
Offsetting some of the impact of falling mining construction investment will be rising output as some of
the projects currently under construction progress to production. Mining output in terms of Gross
Value Added is forecast to increase by 34 per cent over the next five years to $220 billion. This
production will be supported by improved global demand for minerals and energy, with countries such
as China growing, albeit at a slower rate, the rise of India and the recovery in the United States
economy.1
Given the relatively high cost base of Australian mining, companies are likely to continue searching
for methods of cutting costs and improving productivity.
Thus productivity is the magic word for the mining industry at the moment – how do we produce more
at lower cost? This is where skilling and training are especially vital from an economic, bottom line
point of view. How do we produce that application of skills at the right time, in the right place at the
right price?
Economic conditions in the infrastructure sector have softened recently after the Government stimulus
in response to the Global Financial Crisis and rebuilding after the Queensland floods.
Population, economic, and trade growth, however, are pushing infrastructure demand, particularly in
the transport and utilities sub-sectors, with both Federal and State Governments consequently
committing to expanding infrastructure development from mid-decade (as well as over the longer
term). Given the lead time for workforce skilling it is appropriate that skills plans be prepared in the
lead up to increased activity in the middle of the decade. 2
Government position
The Commonwealth sees the Resources and Infrastructure sectors as crucial to Australia’s economic
future.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott has expressed his desire to be ‘the infrastructure Prime Minister’.3
Minister for Trade and Investment, Andrew Robb, has also indicated that his Government will ‘reboot
the mining boom;. 4
The Commonwealth’s Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda points out that ‘economic
infrastructure – roads, rail, ports, airports, energy, water and communications is key to Australia’s
competitiveness’.5
It also points out that ‘Australia’s economic infrastructure will not be able to meet Australia’s needs in
the 21st century’. 6 The Agenda also posits one mining-related and one energy-related industry
among its five growth industries – Mining Equipment, Technology and Services and Energy, Oil and
Gas.7 These and other nominated industries such as Food and Agriculture and Advanced
Manufacturing will depend heavily on the quality of Australia’s infrastructure base.
The Agenda observes that, while the VET system is well-regarded, concerns have been raised about
the VET system’s ability to deliver the skills demanded by the Australian economy. 8
In response, the Commonwealth has acknowledged the need for VET Reform, driving an allencompassing VET Reform Agenda that includes: new risk based standards for Registered Training
Organisations and regulators, a beefed up training regulator, a new Industry Skills Fund, new
apprenticeships support arrangements and a review of training packages and accredited courses and
training package contestability.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 4
Skills environment
The Resources and Infrastructure sectors have been characterised by skills gaps rather than an
overall labour shortage. Many unskilled workers have expressed an interest in joining these sectors
but there is no widespread shortage of unskilled workers.
Skills gaps, while having ameliorated due to softer economic conditions, nevertheless remain and will
become more acute later in the decade, exacerbated by the ageing workforce.
Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) reached the official retirement age of 65 in 2011 and
will be retiring in record numbers over the next decade. While they comprised 36 per cent of the
workforce in 2010, they will make up just 15 per cent in 2020. 9 The National Resources Sector
Employment Taskforce Report (NRSET 2010) estimated that there would be around 16,000 persons
retiring from or leaving the mining sector between 2010 and 2015.10
As a consequence, quality education, training and retraining will be even more vital, especially given
the lead times to bring trained workers ‘to market’.
Currently, 4.1 million Australians do not have a post-school qualification (Certificate III level), including
a large number of those in the struggling manufacturing sector. 11
The 2006 Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALLS)12 revealed that Australian language, literacy
and numeracy levels have shown little improvement in the decade since the 1996 International Adult
Literacy Survey (IALS). It found that:

Approximately 7 million Australians (46 per cent) had literacy scores below the minimum level
needed to function fully in life and work

Approximately 7.9 million (53 per cent) had numeracy scores below the minimum needed
The Australian National Workforce Literacy Project conducted by AiGroup13 found that more than 75%
of employers reported being affected by low levels of language, literacy and numeracy. The impacts
on business operations included time-wasting through repeated work and workplace errors.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 5
The above graph shows workforce gaps across key mining occupations widening as mining
operations production increases and the impact of Baby Boomer retirements becomes more acute.
The transition of the mining investment boom to a production phase will see rising demand for
operational occupations and skills in the resources sector. The need for mine producers to lower
costs and improve competitiveness through productivity-enhancing investments may constrain growth
in these roles initially (for example, automated processes such as driverless trucks, trains and drill
rigs). Even so, big data approaches to operations coupled with technological innovation in the
industry will produce new and varied roles and drive a need for workers to update their training and
skills to meet changing Industry demands. 14
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 6
The above table shows workforce gaps beginning to appear in the infrastructure/construction sector
as State Governments bring on the next wave of major projects mid-decade.
The infrastructure industry is at a turning point in the cycle. Declining levels of mining and civil
infrastructure construction over the medium term are likely. Workers in this sector will need to be
retained as the next cycle of construction work takes shape later this decade. It will be critical that,
through this period, stakeholders work together to identify emerging skills gaps and re-skill the
workers from areas where supply exceeds demand.15
Workforce development measures are also crucial. A balanced mix of local and mobile workforces
will be required (including Drive In/Drive Out and Fly In/Fly Out strategies) to complement skilling
needs over the coming decade.
Innovative approaches such as cross-skilling employees in regional and remote areas and drawing on
diverse and underrepresented groups (eg. the female and Indigenous talent pool) will continue to be
required.
Individual context
Skilling also has a real wages and career path impact. Real wages also increase with the productivity
associated with quality learning. The Productivity Commission recently found that the literacy and
numeracy skills increasing from competency level 1 (low) to competency level 3 (that deemed to be
required for an individual to function effectively in a complex environment) is associated with an
increase in hourly wage rates of about 25 to 30 per cent. 16
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 7
For the 4.1 million Australians without a post-school qualification, they could be earning an additional
$400,000 on average over the course of a typical working life if they improved their skills to level 3
nationally recognised competencies or higher, in areas of employment demand. 17
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 8
VET QUALITY – TRAINING OUTCOMES NOT THE TRAINING SYSTEM
The quality equation
As the structure of the economy changes, Australia’s training task in coming years will be a major
one.
There is no automatic correlation between greater education spending and quality outcomes. Quality
is also ensured by other drivers such as client choice, relevance of study and teaching
professionalism.
For example, Australia was only one of four countries that recorded a statistically significant decrease
in Programme for International School Assessment (PISA) reading scores from 2000 to 2009.18
This is despite the fact that Australian school expenditure has increased dramatically. Between 2000
and 2009, real expenditure on education increased by 44%. Korea, for example, spends much less
per student than other education systems, yet achieves far better student performance than Australia.
According to the Grattan Institute report `Catching up: learning from the best school systems in East
Asia’19, much of the outperformance of Australia by Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and China is a
result in part of the intensive training and mentoring (ie. professionalisation) of teachers.
Despite numerous policy initiatives directed at VET by State and Commonwealth Governments, just
13.6 per cent of graduates from government-funded private providers reported they had moved into
higher-skilled employment, compared to 25.2 per cent five years ago.20
Quality depends on flexibility and choice
The Commonwealth’s own VET Reform Taskforce stakeholder engagement workshops over early
2014 found ongoing concerns about provider quality in the VET system including:

The quality of training outcomes

Agreed standards

Monitoring and auditing

The availability of reliable information on providers.
The key areas of reform that emerged from the conversations included:

Improving engagement with industry

Reducing red tape across the sector

Streamlining the system for students and providers of training, and

Improving funding mechanisms to better meet the skills needs of business.21
The Commonwealth’s recent $68m allocation to the Australian Skills Quality Authority22, the VET
regulator, underlines the Government’s concern about the quality issues experienced by the VET
sector. For quality to improve, however, outputs-based, market driven measures are needed to make
training industry driven and supply responsive.
Industry-led training
Employers are the key driver of effective, quality training. The clue to industry-led training is in the
word ‘Vocational’ in Vocational Education and Training - it is related to vocations, which in turn is
related to jobs.23
A job is the best guarantee of effective and ongoing skills development as knowledge needs to be
applied continually. Employment is provided chiefly by industry.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 9
The training outcome we seek is a worker being able to operate safely and competently in the
workplace, with broader workforce development outcomes as specified by the employer on top of this.
This is why the Resources and Infrastructure sectors are generally supportive of co-funded models,
such as the Industry Skills Fund, if the money is in the hands of the employer and can be readily
associated with the firm’s economic drivers e.g. productivity.
Training must be for a real job, not for training’s sake. Supply-driven training is a waste of time and
money for employer, trainee and the taxpayer.
For many years, the publicly funded Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector has largely failed
to meet the needs of the Resources and Infrastructure industry. We have consistently advocated for
reform of the VET sector as we believe that to make an optimum contribution to the Australian
economy, the VET sector must be industry-led and responsive to the needs of industry.
Progress towards a demand-driven VET sector is acknowledged, though concerns continue to
surround the variable quality of training outcomes within the sector.24
Employees trained on the job (eg. most apprentices and many trainees), for example, are quite
transferrable between employers because employers have confidence that the qualifications are an
accurate representation of the competencies attained. This is partly because, in the Resources and
Infrastructure sectors, many apprentices and trainees spend most of their time being trained on-site.
VET qualifications not honed in the workplace tend not to be as readily accepted in the Resources
and Infrastructure sectors and often those presenting with such qualifications have to be ‘challenge
tested’ and extensively retrained on site. Safety is a key factor here. Mine and quarry managers and
infrastructure project owners are committed to the safety of their workforces, reinforced by statutory
safety obligations for their operations Rigorous on-the-job training is an assurance of due diligence
and optimal productivity.
Mining enterprises, for example, deliver the majority of their training and assessment using their own
staff. In these cases, supervisors are also qualified as trainers and assessors who work alongside the
learners, ensuring that training and assessment happens consistently in a real life, real time work
environment. This ensures that training is delivered with minimal disruption to production and the
enterprise has complete control over quality, whether the company is a Registered Training
Organisation or not.
Training reforms nationally and in the states have commendably tried to address the issue of
provider-centricity. The main mistake, however, as evidenced in the Victorian reforms of the late
2000s, has been to pass consumer sovereignty solely to students rather than to a balance of students
and employers in the vocational education and training space.
Some unscrupulous private providers have taken advantage of the information asymmetry between
individual students in the marketplace and training providers. This information asymmetry can also
reinforce provider-centricity within the VET sector, where students have enrolled in courses with little
prospect of a job at the end.
As a result, some qualifications granted in the VET system are not valued by employers, partially
because of the variability between providers. Similarly titled courses can be of vastly different
durations (ie. days or years) and provide variable quality outcomes. A longer course is not
necessarily a better course – however there have been instances of dollar-driven RTOs insisting on
shorter timelines, against industry’s wishes, to the point of adversely affecting quality.
Genuine employer/provider partnerships will drive quality training for real jobs
Vocational training should be focused upon gaining a particular skill or set of skills for employment.
Unemployment is never solved by supply-side solutions – quality training always has a job or an
employable skill as its aim, which in turn is dependent on employer demand.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 10
The Productivity Commission notes that genuine partnerships between employers and VET providers
often delivered desired results, and found that the gains from such partnerships for employers
included an enhanced capacity to focus on their core business and to deal with skills shortages.
As such, consumer sovereignty in the training market should be weighted more towards the employer
to ensure more job-centred quality outcomes. Most VET funding, however, is supplied by
Governments direct to the training provider.
Hence the Resources and Infrastructure sector’s support for co-funded training models such as the
Industry Skills Fund and the former National Workforce Development Fund.
Employer sovereignty will be particularly important as structural change continues to impact the
economy – meaningful retraining, for example from manufacturing to other sectors, will require a job
at its conclusion.
An employer-driven vocational training system will ensure increased quality and better value for the
training dollar, for governments, employers and students.
Training providers who partner with industry and meet its rigorous quality standards and expectations
are an increasingly preferred model.
Training Outcome is paramount – Training Organisations as services suppliers
Despite the clarity of industry’s requirements, the operation for over a decade of the Australian Quality
Training Framework in its various guises has been focused on supply side operations and processes.
The ‘training system’ has been favoured over the ‘training outcome’. 25
Any examination of VET Quality must recognise that industry is the key arbiter of the required skills,
knowledge and competencies required to operate effectively in the workplace.
Effectively, especially in the workforce upskilling context, training providers are simply services
providers to industry.
Hiring a TAFE or an RTO is increasingly viewed by industry as a purchasing exercise like any other,
and service providers must measure up to client requirements.
While the impact on individual skills formation and career pathways must be acknowledged (and will
be enhanced by the successful application of skills in the workplace), the mystique afforded by the
term ‘education and training’ must be removed.
As such, all parties must focus on the training outcome, not the training system.
Reform of VET and TAFE will require political will and a bipartisan approach nationally and with the
states and industry, if the system is to become more relevant to individuals and industry. A worst
case scenario would be one that encouraged a lack of innovation and market relevance, with the
provision of outdated and irrelevant supply-driven services and practices consuming scarce public
resources in a dynamically changing economy.
The VET Reform Process
In the first half of 2014, with the establishment of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG)
Industry and Skills Council26, the following objectives for reform of vocational education and training
were set by the Council:
1. A national VET system which is governed effectively with clear roles and responsibilities for
industry, the Commonwealth and the states and territories
2. A national system of streamlined industry-defined qualifications that are able to respond
flexibly to major national and state priorities and emerging areas of skills needed
3. Trade apprenticeships that are appropriately valued and utilised as a career pathway
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 11
4. A Modern and responsive national regulatory system that applies a risk-management
approach and supports a competitive and well-functioning market
5. Informed consumers who have access to the information that they need to make choices
about providers and training that meets their needs
6. Targeted and efficient government funding that considers inconsistencies between
jurisdictions or disruption to the fee-for-service market
The Council also agreed on the following three priorities:

To examine the standards for providers and regulators to ensure they better recognise the
different levels of risk posed by different providers, enable the regulators to deal more
effectively with poor quality in the sector to improve confidence, and meet the Government’s
deregulation objectives

To reduce the burden on the VET sector arising from the constant updates to training
packages

To ensure that industry is involved in policy development and oversight of the performance of
the VET sector and to streamline governance arrangements and committees
Over the intervening past several months, the Commonwealth Government released a series of
announcements relating to its emerging approach to vocational education and training. A key
area of interest about which Industry had been waiting for information was the announcement that
would clarify its roles and responsibilities. On 31 October 2014, the Commonwealth Minister for
Industry announced the following:
The Australian Government is opening a new round of consultation on the implementation of reforms to
deliver more industry-relevant and flexible national training packages, which will in turn drive productivity
and competitiveness.
The first discussion paper, Review of Training Packages and Accredited Courses, will seek comments
on whether training packages are meeting the needs of industry, employers, students and the economy.
The second, Industry Engagement in Training Package Development – Towards a Contestable Model,
will examine contestable approaches for the development and maintenance of training packages.
A skilled and flexible workforce is a key element of the Australian Government’s Industry Innovation and
Competitiveness Agenda because it will enable businesses to capitalise on existing and new
opportunities.
Submissions to Industry Engagement in Training Package Development – Towards a Contestable
Model will close on 24 December 2014 while submissions to the Review of Training Packages and
27
Accredited Courses will close on 18 February 2015.
Industry Training Packages
Industry Training Packages are at the heart of the quality equation because they specify the skills and
competencies needed to operate safely and competently in the workplace.
The Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package28 is developed against Industry
specifications and is a vital tool in validating the skills of the Resources and Infrastructure Industry
workforce.
Companies are able to map training requirements against the competencies outlined in the Package
and tailor training according to enterprise requirements.
Currently, a number of entities are contracted by the Australian Government to provide the functions
of Industry Skills Councils. One such contract is held by SkillsDMC on behalf of the Resources and
Infrastructure Industry.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 12
The RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package specifies the skills and knowledge
required for workers to perform effectively in the Coal Mining, Metalliferous Mining, Civil Infrastructure,
Quarrying (Extractive) and Drilling Industry Sectors.
As part of this function, a range of activities are undertaken including developing and maintaining the
RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package, developed against industry
specifications, which is a vital tool in validating the skills of the Resources and Infrastructure Industry
workforce; engaging in industry consultation; developing a range of learning, assessment and support
materials to complement the RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package; and
developing the industry annual growth outlook study called an 'Environmental Scan'.
In fulfilling responsibilities under this arrangement, SkillsDMC on behalf of the Resources and
Infrastructure Industry works closely with industry, Governments, employer and employee bodies and
communities, as well as training organisations and Industry and training regulators to strive for quality,
and for Industry-led vocational education and training arrangements within the National Training
System.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 13
TRAINING PACKAGE REFORM – A RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
INDUSTRY APPROACH
Training packages – background
This submission focusses on responding to the Industry Engagement in Training Package
Development Discussion Paper - Towards a Contestable Model for which submissions close on 24
December 2014. However, while submissions to the Review of Training Packages and Accredited
Courses – Discussion Paper do not close until 18 February 2015, it is impossible to provide
meaningful commentary on the Industry Engagement in Training Package Development Discussion
Paper - Towards a Contestable Model without reference to both Discussion Papers.
As stated in the Minister’s 31 October 2014 announcement, Industry Engagement in Training
Package Development Discussion Paper – Towards a Contestable Model examines contestable
approaches for the development and maintenance of training packages while Review of Training
Packages and Accredited Courses – Discussion Paper29 seeks comments on whether training
packages are meeting the needs of industry, employers, students and the economy.
There are repeated references to the need to redress the perception of a history of one size fits all
that is best captured by the following extract:
Concerns have been raised about the one-size-fits-all approach to the regulation, development and
maintenance of training packages. Training package content is determined by the 2012 Standards for
Training Packages (the Standards) and the development process by the Training Package
Development and Endorsement Process Policy. The Standards and their associated qualityassurance processes apply a consistent degree of rigour, regardless of the different risk factors
associated with the industry, occupation or qualification.
Arguably, this approach has resulted in a disproportionate regulatory effort in relation to some training
packages and qualifications. It has also led to some stakeholders raising concerns about the delays
in getting training package updates in place, while other stakeholders have questioned whether the
frequent changes to their training packages are really necessary.30
We are seeking to ensure that the responsibility for the content and purpose of Industry Training
Packages will not be diluted. It is hoped that the responsibility for, in this case, the Resources and
Infrastructure Industry Training Package will not be taken out of the hands of industry and put into the
hands of non-industry people to determine levels of performance for the industry.
A rejection of industry leadership will ensure the next skills shortage.
To its credit, the Government consistently reaffirms its commitment to industry’s needs via industryled skilling - now and into the future.
Industry Training Packages were called by this title at their inception in 1996 during the Howard era,
reflecting that at that time they were planned to comprise the following 6 components:
1. Units of Competence
2. Assessment Guidelines
3. Qualifications Framework
4. Learning Materials
5. Assessment Materials
6. Professional Development Materials
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 14
At that time, and largely driven by the availability of public funding for items 4. to 6. above, the States
and Territories determined that they would retain responsibility for these areas outside the Industry
Training Package, leaving the endorseable components of an Industry Training Package as items 1.
to 3. from the above list.
In hindsight, the name ‘Training Package’ was no longer appropriate but was not changed.
However, the surviving definition of an Industry Training Package as included in the 2013 Compact
with Industry31 is supported:
Training Packages specify the skills and knowledge required to perform effectively in the workplace.
They do not prescribe how an individual should be trained. Trainers and supervisors develop learning
strategies – the 'how' – to support an individual learners' needs, abilities and circumstances.
The Compact with Industry was signed by ACCI, AIG and the ACTU, with a supporting Resources
and Infrastructure compact signed by the SkillsDMC constituent organisations Minerals Council of
Australia (MCA), Australian Drilling Industry Association (ADIA), the National Office of the Civil
Contractors Federation (CCF), Cement, Concrete and Aggregates Australia (CCAA), the Construction
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union Mining and Energy Division (CFMEU) and the Australian Workers
Union (AWU).
Training Packages - competencies or curricula?
A better title for what we currently call Industry Training Packages might be ‘Skills Competency
Recognition Frameworks’ noting that the content of the existing definition holds true, i.e.:
A Skills Competency Recognition Framework specifies the skills and knowledge required to perform
effectively in the workplace. It does not prescribe how an individual should be trained. Trainers and
supervisors develop learning strategies – the 'how' – to support an individual learners' needs, abilities
and circumstances.
The first order issue is that Industry Training Packages are populated only by Industry – the owner of
the intellectual property and content.
Industry-led vocational education and training arrangements within the national training system is the
only way an open and uninterrupted skills pathway can be achieved – a pathway which fulfils the
knowledge and competency needs of Industry and promotes a sustainable and safe workforce with
transferable skills, regardless of the business cycle.
Industry’s definition of its expectations of the vocational education and training arrangements within
the national training system are found in the previously referenced Compact with Industry.
The danger is the triumph of self-interest from a service sector (training providers), replacing industryled skills development with supply driven ‘training’ based on full qualifications.
Within industry’s specifications, supply side accountabilities should be against meeting industry need
for competency assessment within the context of the workplace. The role of course structures etc.,
are excluded within the definition of an Industry Training Package, which specifically notes that they
do not prescribe how an individual should be trained. Trainers and supervisors develop learning
strategies – the 'how' – to support an individual learners' needs, abilities and circumstances.
Within the current supply-driven focus of the policy, regulation, funding and administration of the
arrangements, qualifications are held as being the outcome.
However, it is clear and common for a company not to require a complete qualification (i.e., its needs
are one or more skill sets/qualification sub sets) for every single job in its business Skill sets are
simply entry and exit points to employment.
Despite advocacy to the contrary, these two areas of demand (a full qualification as a policy outcome
and a set of skills as a company need) are not naturally in tension and it is noted that the Discussion
Paper provides for at least recognition of the issue.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 15
The language of the discussion paper does not fully recognise this and is not consistent – it ranges
from ‘a training package, or set of qualifications’ to ‘Industry-defined qualifications (training packages)’
reflecting a view that Industry Training Packages must be designed to meet the needs of the training
system (not the training outcome), which is the area of greatest failure and obstruction in the pursuit
of competency based training and assessment for meeting industry workforce needs.
Industry-led vocational education and training arrangements within the national training system relate
to entry level and existing workers and focus on three areas as follows:
1. The allocation of public and private funding driven by economic need around current and
future jobs that will sustain Australia’s economic growth (setting priorities)
2. Determining the specifications for what is required for an employee to work safely and
productively in a current workplace and the workplace of the future (units of competence)
3. Validating the relevance and quality of the outcome of the skilling experience such that an
employer has confidence that the person has the skills to safely operate in the workplace
(Quality)
Competency based training is about the accumulation of competence, not the time taken as
determined by regulators nor within a system that fails to understand the primary role of the workplace
in achieving competence and the specification of the skills expected of an employee in the workplace
through the Units of Competence that comprise Industry Training Packages.
There is also an element of Training Packages picking up language, literacy and numeracy skills that
should be within the bailiwick of schools.
Are all Training Packages broken?
While Industry Skills Council (ISC) and Training Package performance is variable across sectors, we
would counter any assumption that the Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Packages is
broken. It would be dangerous to remove the influence of industry, revoking its leadership role in this
area by changing the relationship dynamic from a partnership and involvement to an uneven
authorising environment which industry serves.
One frequent criticism, usually from the supply side, is the number of changes to Training Packages
on a yearly basis.
Using historical data available on the national register - www.training.gov.au - the analysis identified
the number of changes made to Training Packages during the period 15 August 2010 and 15 August
2013. This mirrors the timeframe examined by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) in an
earlier piece of work which brought the issue to the fore. With the assistance of ISCs, the
modification histories of all Training Packages were then analysed to determine the drivers
underpinning changes during that period.
The analysis shows that rarely does a single driver trigger change. Usually multiple drivers play a
role, a testament to the fact that ISCs consciously cluster changes together in order to minimise
impact on RTOs and other stakeholders. Because there are often multiple drivers for a single
change, percentages attributed to the drivers for change do not total 100%.
It is important to note that Training Packages analysed in this review were largely developed under
previous policy for Training Packages, and the benefits of the new Standards for Training Packages –
particularly their capacity to limit the unnecessary impact of change - are still to flow through to the
system and therefore not reflected in the report’s findings.
The analysis found that during the period 15 August 2010 and 15 August 2013:

The majority of change to Training Packages was driven by industry need - 79% of all
changes to Training Packages included industry driven change
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 16

Change was also driven by a succession of government policy reforms intensified by
demanding implementation timeframes - 32% of all changes included changes due to
government policy

During the period under analysis, several factors combined to create significant issues with
data entry onto the national register. For the first 11 months of the review period, the National
Training Information Service (NTIS) served as the national register. In July 2011
www.training.gov.au was put in place as the new national register involving mass data
migration of all Training Packages from NTIS which in itself created errors. Quality assurance
of Training Packages through www.training.gov.au has also been problematic and software
enhancements to assist with the final editing and quality assurance of content were not
introduced until late in 2012. This enhancement is reducing problems although extensive
manual data entry and manual cross referencing across multiple fields remain an inherent
weakness of www.training.gov.au. Between August 2010 and August 2013, 36% of changes
had issues associated with data entry onto the national register

Change to Training Packages was also driven by maintenance policy mandated in the
Standards for Training Packages (and previously the Training Package Development
Handbook). 10% of all changes included some aspect of maintenance policy driven change

8% of changes included corrections to errors caused by www.training.gov.au during the
publishing process, such as needing to re-publish components that were ‘lost’ in the data
transfer, or errors in metadata and mapping that occurred during publication. Some of these
errors originated during the migration of data from the NTIS to www.training.gov.au.
The analysis also shows that:

Overall, changes to Training Packages increased over the period reviewed. National Skills
Standards Council (NSSC) endorsements spiked during the 2011/2012 period as ISCs sought
to put through submissions prior to the cut-off date for Training Packages developed under
the former Training Package Development Handbook

Only a small number of Training Packages had a disproportionately large number of
changes. Just seven (7) of the 58 Training Packages that fell within the scope of the analysis
had six (6) or more changes made over the three year analysis period. This equates to two
(2) changes per year, about double the average for all Training Packages

The remainder of Training Packages experienced only moderate rates of change, and some
were not changed at all. Over 62% of Training Packages (36 of the 58 in the scope of this
analysis), changed on average once per year or less over the three year analysis period

Training Packages which experienced the greatest amount of change were often ‘high
volume’ Training Packages, with a large number of student enrolments. All but two (2) of the
seven (7) most changed Training Packages are in the ‘Top 20’ Training Packages in terms of
student numbers, suggesting that a single change to these Training Packages is likely to have
more widespread impact given the number of RTOs with qualifications from these Training
Packages on scope

Training Packages with a large amount of change also tended to comprise a large number of
qualifications and Units of Competency. For example the Agriculture, Horticulture and
Conservation and Land Management Training Package contains 91 qualifications and 802
Units of Competency, compared to an average of 29 qualifications in other Training
Packages. The Property Services Training Package includes 50 qualifications. These
Training Packages are large and cover multiple industries as a result of ‘rationalisation’ policy
driven by the then Australian National Training Authority in its bid to drive greater recognition
of cross-industry skills
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 17
The change history for the RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package (aligned to the
period of the changes that were covered by the joint exercise of changes to Industry Training
Packages between August 2010 and August 2013) tells a similar story:
Release
Release Date
Approval process
Drivers for Change
RII09 - 2.0
22 June 2011
NSSC process
Industry Demand. There were a range
of new Skill Sets added and also
amendments made to a range of
qualifications and Units of competency
RII09 - 3.0
21 March 2012
NSSC process
Industry Demand and Policy
driven. Several qualifications were
amended in response to flexible
packaging policy. Also new content
added and amendments made for
continuous improvement.
RII09 - 3.1
15 February 2013
ISC upgrade
Industry Demand. Continuous
Improvement amendments made
RII09 - 3.2
29 May 2013
ISC upgrade
Industry Demand. Continuous
Improvement amendments made
Consultation with stakeholders has identified several critical points within the Continuous
Improvement Process that exacerbate the impact of changes on stakeholders, particularly RTOs.
These include:

A fundamental tension between a VET system premised on being responsive to changing
industry needs, and the current model for regulation where changes to Training Packages
often trigger fee impacts and/or compliance activities on RTOs

Sweeping government policy reforms which require change to all Training Packages with
fixed and often demanding timeframes for implementation, and which frequently sit at odds
with industry priorities and timeframes for change

Technical and policy/process limitations of the system for publishing Training Packages on
www.training.gov.au, including:

A content management system that relies too heavily on manual data entry and manual
cross referencing, risking error and omission

Recent enhancements to www.training.gov.au now allow ISCs to more easily view and
download pre-published content and check metadata of the Training Package are helping
to address this issue, however extensive manual data entry and manual cross-referencing
across multiple fields remains an inherent weakness of the system

Minor editorial corrections to provide more clarity, improve readability or correct content
due to omissions during upload triggering the release of new Training Package versions

Incorrect or missing data on www.training.gov.au triggering inappropriate regulatory
responses. For example, incorrect Training Package release dates on
www.training.gov.au can lead regulators’ systems to apply incorrect transition periods to
RTOs and has the potential to lead to RTOs being incorrectly non-compliant
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 18


Differing interpretations of policy by ISCs when determining:

What can be included in an ’ISC Upgrade’

What constitutes ’equivalency of outcomes’ in relation to new and superseded units of
competency

The point at which quality assurance of Industry Training Packages is undertaken prior to
publication, and the rigour applied by members of the Training Package Quality
Assurance Panel - a mandated step in the process which functions as third party QA
The need for RTOs and State Training Authorities to better manage change and continuous
improvement as part of a sustainable business model and industry driven VET system
Training packages have also been used as a mechanism to address a wide range of government
policy agendas (eg LLN, foundation skills ACSF) which, in some cases, has crowded out technical
content and alienated industry. Focus needs to return to a truly industry-led agenda.
Training Package - Industry Ownership?
Industry is the only cohort that creates jobs. Industry also populates the Resources and Infrastructure
Industry Training Package.
However, the announcement by the Commonwealth Government on 11 September 2014 on its VET
Reform website32 does not mention Industry’s position as a partner in the skilling of the workforce:
The Commonwealth owns the training package development process because it pays for it. We can
move forward with this process and make improvements to it.
Training products are owned by all Australian Governments and they, and the exercise of reviewing
them, are more complex and may take more time.
Many Training Package-related processes and the regulations have not been implemented at the
request of Industry. This has been due to the influence of regulators (financial and systemic) and the
training system stakeholders. As an example, the former National Skills Standards Council’s policy
determination of the Streamlined Industry Training Packages was rejected by the Resources and
Infrastructure Industry and only acceded to under the pressure of endorsement not being considered.
In addition, the costs that have arisen in taking forward Industry Training Package development and
maintenance has resulted from interventions by government agencies that have resulted in increasing
not only cost but unnecessarily increasing complexity to suit other than Industry stakeholders needs
and entrench even further the control of training by regulatory authorities.
The Industry Compacts reinforce the policy and role of Industry Training Packages, which specifically
respond to the needs of entry level and existing workers through their specification of the skills and
knowledge required to perform effectively in the workplace and which are therefore the basis against
which all stakeholders meeting these needs must operate.
Specifically, the Compact with Industry reaffirms that Industry Training Packages do not prescribe
how an individual should be trained. Trainers and supervisors develop learning strategies on ‘how’ to
support an individual learners' needs, abilities and circumstances (i.e., a different product).
These fundamental elements of the vocational education and training arrangements within the
national training system give clarity to the demand and supply relationship of the market place.
Ensuring this dynamic is defined and balanced is critical to meeting Australia’s workforce skills needs.
At this point it is important to note that while the current interest of the Commonwealth Government in
Industry Training Packages is focussed exclusively on their relationship with the Vocational Education
and Training arrangements within the National Training System, their purpose and use is more
expansive as per the following diagram.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 19
Industry E ngagement In Traaining Package Devvelopment - Towardds A Contestable Model
| 20
Training package – broad stakeholders
The release on 28 January 201433 of the nineteenth edition of the Report on Government
Services includes the following:
5.1 Profile of vocational education and training
Service overview
The general roles of the VET system, and the main reasons that students participate in
VET programs, are to:

Obtain a qualification to enter the labour force

Retrain or update labour force skills

Develop skills, including general education skills such as literacy and numeracy,
that enhance students’ ability to enter the labour force

Provide a pathway to further tertiary education, including entrance to higher
education
This parallels industry’s view that the primary function of Australia’s national training system
including the vocational education and training arrangements which operate therein is to
provide high quality, relevant and assessable training and education for the following
cohorts34:
Cohort
Status
Entry level skilling
All working age Australians have a guarantee of a training place to
get up to their first Certificate III qualification. Provision is largely
affected by inconsistent application of the guarantee and the
variability of rationalising mechanisms across the various
jurisdictions.
Existing worker up
skilling or reskilling
Industry, the economy (Government) and the individual are
beneficiaries of existing worker upskill and reskill. Again, the
variability of rationalising mechanisms across the various
jurisdictions impacts the effectiveness of meeting this cohort’s
needs.
People exercising
choice for their own
advancement or
interest
This is a national training system cohort whose needs are about
individual choice and whose influence on exercising choice for
specifically available opportunities should not drive public policy
around Industry Training Packages.
People’s need for
skills for life
This is a national training system cohort whose needs are to have
skills that allow them to exercise choice including entering the
workforce with a capability to support an expectation of success due
to having as a prerequisite the skills needed to learn to learn.
However, it is argued that the Report on Government Services descriptor is of the national
training system rather than the vocational education and training arrangements therein.
Industry does not seek to influence all aspects of the national training system but does
consider it critical it provides leadership for the skill needs for both new entrants to the
workforce and for existing workers (i.e., the vocational education and training arrangements
within the national training system).
This leadership is best observed in the units of competency included in what are currently
called Industry Training Packages. These specify the skills and knowledge required to
perform effectively in the workplace for entry level and existing workers. The intended
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 21
outcome is industry’s confidence in the competence of individuals assessed and certified
against the Units of Competency which comprise an Industry Training Package.
Currently, the key determinative actions within the system are:
Action
Subject
Authority
Accredit
Courses



Register
Training Providers



Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) for all
States and Territories except for Western
Australia and Victoria
The Western Australian Training Accreditation
Council
The Victorian Registration and Qualifications
Authority
Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) for all
States and Territories except for Western
Australia and Victoria
The Western Australian Training Accreditation
Council
The Victorian Registration and Qualifications
Authority
Populate
Industry Training
Packages

Industry (with assistance of ISCs)
Endorse
Industry Training
Packages

Successor to the National Skills Standards
Council (NSSC) being the Australian Industry
Skills Committee when established
Certify
Competence

Registered Training Organisations
Qualify
Individuals

Registered Training Organisations
This results in industry having some participation but no determinative role. Also, the existing
roles do not adequately separate design specification (Industry Training Package Units of
Competence) and quality of outcome (confidence in the competence of individuals as
assessed and certified) as evidenced through skills assessment in the work environment.
Training Packages in the context of VET deregulation?
VET deregulation began in earnest in the late 2000s – however, it is arguable whether we
have a truly deregulated or even functional training market.
In a truly deregulated market, the supply side would adapt to meet the needs of the demand
side. This is still not occurring in the manner of a mature market.
Furthermore, while it would be expected that Government remain the ‘keeper of the ring’, the
training market has been characterised by heavy handed and arbitrary input driven
interventions on the part of Government.
Over the recent past, there has been substantial activity and policy settings established by the
NSSC or its predecessors:

VET Products for the 21st Century

Rules about the content of Industry Training Package qualifications and the ways an
individual learner or an employer can choose which units are ‘packaged’ together to
meet the requirements for a vocational education and training qualification
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 22

‘Streamlined’ Industry Training Packages

Standards for Industry Training Packages

Standards for VET Accredited Courses

Standards for the Regulation of VET
These activities (which with their rapidity and detail are taxing both industry’s capacity to
respond and its perception of the value of the structured training system) have been taken
forward under the authority of system regulators rather than through the auspices of industry.
The result has been the ability of the supply side stakeholders to mount attacks on industry
leadership under the guise of various supply driven issues including claims of negative
impacts that frequent changes to Industry Training Packages have on delivery and
administrative costs to be met by Registered Training Organisations. The reality is that
Industry Training Packages do not contain materials that impact on the supply side.
Within the definition of an Industry Training Package as per the Compact with Industry, supply
side accountabilities should be matched with meeting industry need for competency
assessment within the context of the workplace.
Furthermore, the vocational education and training arrangements within the national training
system provides no seat for industry at the determinative table. Yet industry is the only group
that employs people. Over the past decade, Industry has seen a reduction in its
representation on matters relating to quality training.
The new VET Advisory Board is having an early impact and is a welcome innovation, but its
role to this point remains advisory rather than determinative. Risk-based regulation of RTOs
is also a positive, depending on implementation and the locus of risk.
The failure of the current environment is the sole reliance on an inputs and process focused
regulatory response to the inconsistent quality of training and assessment from Registered
Training Organisations, rather than a focus on training outcomes.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 23
SPECIFIC COMMENTARY ON INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT IN TRAINING
PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT – DISCUSSION PAPER - TOWARDS A
CONTESTABLE MODEL
The remainder of this submission addresses or questions the premise of the content of the
Industry Engagement in Training Package Development – Towards a Contestable Model.
The purpose of this discussion paper is noted as being to receive views and suggestions
about contestable approaches to the development of training packages that guide industry
directed vocational education and training (VET) in Australia.
Features of Industry-Defined Qualifications
This submission argues that while acknowledging the importance of qualifications, industry’s
position is that competency based training and assessment remains the accumulation and
demonstration of competence that will result in the achievement of sufficient competencies to
warrant the issuing of a qualification. The journey is recognised via the awarding of
statements of attainment as each competency is demonstrated.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 24
Discussion questions
One of the primary aims of this review is to ensure more direct industry involvement in the
development and review of training packages. What are important features of the
development and maintenance processes for industry defined qualifications that need to be
retained in any new model?
Are there any other features necessary for an industry led training package development
and maintenance process?
Industry-wide national competency based standards
It is agreed that industry wide national competencies are the key ingredients of industrydefined outcomes including statements of attainment (competencies) leading to
qualifications (sufficient volume of statements of attainment issued as competencies are
demonstrated) which certify that an individual has the competencies expected to operate in
the workplace to an accepted industry-wide standard regardless of the pathway through
which the competencies were achieved. The ultimate vision for the Resources and
Infrastructure sectors, with our global reach, is global competency standards.
Future focused
As noted in the Discussion Paper, scanning of industry developments and ongoing contact
with key stakeholders in sectors reveals trends in technology and work practices that
require changes in skills eg. increased automation in the mining sector. Capturing these
trends is key to ensuring competencies (rather than the focus on qualifications) remain
contemporary. This will only be achieved via industry-led training. The ongoing function of
e-scans in informing Industry Training Package enhancements is an essential feature of
any model.
External impacts on qualifications content
The position that national training package qualifications take into account a range of
external factors that impact on the content and form of the qualification further
misrepresents the purpose of the Industry Training Package. The qualification is only one
of a number of uses of an Industry Training Package. The training system stakeholders
would be well placed focussing on their responsibilities in providing services to meet the
specifications that are the outcome or competency recognition. The remaining references
to licensing requirements for specific occupations, such as the trades and other nationally
and internationally regulated occupations is agreed as are requirements to address issues
such as work practices mandated by regulatory requirements such as occupational health
and safety, safe handling of chemicals and working with children.
The softening of the language from the previous expectation that Industry Training
Packages ‘direct’ the response expected of training providers to them ‘guiding’ could lead to
a watering down of industry’s leadership role.
Ensuring public benefit
The statement ‘Formal industry-defined VET qualifications deliver benefits beyond industry
itself’ is restrictive. This submission argues that greater specificity in scope and language is
needed. This is not at odds with the intent that ‘Individuals need to acquire a range of skills
and knowledge that extends beyond those required within a particular firm to ensure they
have job mobility and can build a career. These broader industry skills are particularly
important in times of rapid economic restructuring to support workers to transition into new
jobs’. Conversely, while it is accepted that ‘enhancement of language, literacy and
numeracy skills and the knowledge underpinning skills that raise the general capability of
the Australian labour force is crucial’, such a sweeping statement fails to attribute the
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 25
appropriate level of responsibility to the school system to ensure appropriate levels of
language, literacy and numeracy are achieved before entering a vocational pathway and
thereby increasing the likelihood of individual success. The elaboration that this is the
rationale for public funding for the development of qualifications and for delivery of training
does not stand up to scrutiny nor is it relevant to a discussion on Industry Training Package
development and maintenance.
Cross-industry skills
The position that ‘Many occupations operate across industry sectors and many
competencies and underpinning knowledge are common across many occupations’ and
that ‘Minimising duplication between qualifications and units of competency enhances cross
industry skills recognition and mobility between and within sectors’ is supported.
Efficiency
The position that Industry Training Packages represent a logical grouping of qualifications
within related industry sectors is flawed as it perpetuates their purpose being limited to
being part of the training system rather than acknowledging their wider use and that the
training system is a service provider rather than the determinant (Industry led and not
supply driven). The final statement that ‘Training package qualifications take account of
broad developments in the relevant industry sectors as well as national policies and
broader external trends. Review and redevelopment of training packages as a whole,
therefore, deliver efficiencies in the process’ is basically sound but fails to again recognise
the purpose of an Industry Training Package.
Consistent contact point for industry
It is true that ‘There may also be practical considerations for industry representatives who
may prefer a consistent point of contact to provide feedback on qualifications to contribute
to their continuous improvement.’ However, the key focus is competencies rather than
qualifications.
Additional Features
The key feature of an industry led versus a supply driven arrangement is that the
endorsement of the content of units of competence, which must remain as the key
component of the Industry Training Package, must be by industry without the imposed
regulation and imposition of the needs of the training system having a retained veto through
bureaucratic policies that are irrelevant to the Packages.
Attributes for Training Package Development
In the Resources and Infrastructure Industry, the contribution to the development and
maintenance of the RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package is supported
by Government but this is substantially offset in additional costs that are the result of the
imposed regulation and processes resulting from Government assuming and imposing its will
such that the pathway for industry to specify and take forward its needs is blunted.
Discussion questions
Are there other attributes or skills that are important to support efficient and effective training
package development processes? Provide an explanation.
In your view what are the key attributes required for individuals or organisations developing
training packages?
How might your industry/sector contribute to the development and maintenance of training
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 26
packages?

Financial

In-kind (eg allocation of resources to provide technical expertise)

Other
Industry experience and connection
The position noted in the Discussion Paper that ‘Developers need a deep understanding of
the workforce and occupation needs of industry sectors, or experience in dealing with industry
representatives and businesses to develop and write the competencies. They would also
need to scan the industry both nationally and internationally for best practice in skills required
for each sector’ is supported. The statement that ‘this is particularly important if the VET
sector is to deliver skills to support Australia’s Industry, Innovation and Competitiveness
agenda’ could lead to the assumption that that the purpose of an Industry Training Package is
to meet the needs of the training system.
Technical competence
The position noted in the Discussion Paper that ‘Developing and refining competencies
entails technical and inter-personal skills and an understanding of how skills are utilised in the
workplace. The developer needs to undertake analysis of job roles in the workplace and draw
out from workers and supervisors the range of skills that need to be applied, as well as
understanding the current work context, supervision and health and safety aspects of being
an effective worker’ is supported.
National coverage
The position noted in the Discussion Paper that ‘Training packages, by their very nature, have
national application and therefore any organisation developing the content would need to be
able to engage with industry representatives across the nation and would need to ensure all
businesses across the country have an avenue for providing input’ is supported.
Responsiveness to national policy
The noting in the discussion paper that ‘Training packages need to meet minimum quality
standards in order to service industry and the training system. Training Package content also
needs to align with changes in national policy. Developers would need to be able to
demonstrate capacity to meet those expectations’ needs greater specificity about which
policies are meant. The history of imposed policies around making Industry Training
Packages directly support training providers and systems must cease if industry led is to gain
traction and the training system is to realise its service provider role.
Independence
The statements that ‘Training packages set standards for outcomes of training to meet
national industry workforce needs and often involve a negotiated settlement across industries’
is flawed by continuing to focus their purpose on training delivery systems. However,
continuing the theme of industry leadership, the statement that ‘Developers would need to be
independent and have no conflict of interest in order to retain the confidence of all relevant
industries’ is supported, and should explicitly exclude RTOs or associated bodies.
Cross-industry understanding
The comments that ‘Some of the core qualifications in operation in the VET sector, such as
those in trade related areas, serve many industry sectors’ and that ‘Developers of these
qualifications would need an understanding of the full extent of application of the qualification
across sectors’ are broadly supported noting that the Discussion Paper needs to be less
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 27
about the training process and more about the skilled outcome.
Minimising duplication
The statement that ‘A priority for VET reform is to streamline qualifications to ensure they
meet the job needs of industry and business’ misses the point that training packages are
about workplace competencies not full qualifications.
The proposed arrangement for industry groups, for example, not being simply engaged to
develop training packages or qualifications for their sector but being commissioned to develop
the qualifications for a range of industry sub-sectors potentially erodes the path taken by the
Resources and Infrastructure Industry in rationalising the Industry Training Package along
value chain arrangements.
Leveraging co-contribution
The suggestion that ‘Financial contribution to the development of qualifications is a strong
signal of industry commitment to formalising the skills needed for the sector. The capacity to
leverage industry and business contributions to the process could be a consideration in the
allocation of responsibility for development of qualifications’. The Resources and
Infrastructure Industry queries this suggestion in the strongest possible terms as many of its
constituent companies and industry associations could not afford to fund the development of
the package beyond the considerable amount of in-kind support and time spent developing it,
particularly given current industry conditions. In the case of the Resources and Infrastructure
Industry, all content is that of industry.
Additional Features
The key attribute for Industry Training Package development must be reduced regulation,
which brings with it unnecessary cost and frustration representing as it does processes
imposed by non Industry agencies.
Industry Driving Training Package Qualifications
As previously noted, this submission argues that while acknowledging the importance of
qualifications, industry’s position is that competency based training and assessment remains
the accumulation and demonstration of competence that will result in the achievement of
sufficient competencies to warrant the issuing of a qualification. The journey is recognised via
the awarding of statements of attainment as each competency is demonstrated.
Discussion questions
What are your views on the proposed streamlined approach to industry engagement in the
qualification development?
How might economic analysis or industry trends be accessed in the future?
Industry input early in the development process
It is agreed that ‘Early industry input in training package development will ensure
qualifications and other content is consistent with industry’s needs’. It is unfortunate that the
Discussion Paper starts at a ‘one size fits all’ basis by assuming that all current holders of
Industry Skills Council contracts operate in the same way and at the same level of service.
There are cases now where direct industry input determine the qualifications (inappropriately
referenced as the correct product is the Industry Training Package) that are required for the
system (again, the more correct outcome area is skilling the workforce).
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 28
There is also a risk with the proposed model of ‘direct engagement of industry with the
Committee to determine the skills needed for an industry sector and if this is best met as a
specific skill set or a qualification. This may take the form of a business case setting out the
rationale and economic and industry need for the change. The Committee would make a
determination and possibly select the best body to undertake the task. This provides a
transparent standardised process through which industry can have its skills needs considered
and recognised’ that process is again being used as a flawed panacea for rigour at the
Industry/Sector level and without recognising that the extra demand on Industry could cause
the raising of the question of whether the value proposition of being bound by such a
regulation/process moribund arrangement is worth the result.
Streamlined industry-endorsement processes
The comments that ‘To support the reduction in red tape, the endorsement process is
anticipated to be significantly simplified. A risk based approach for endorsement would be
implemented. Where the final delivered product aligns with the initial industry business case,
the scope of work prescribed by the Committee, quality standards and industry support is
evident, endorsement would be automatic’ is supported.
However, the expectation that ‘Only where industry stakeholders are unable to reach
agreement would the qualifications need to be referred to the Committee for further
development work or specific endorsement’ is negated by the concern that while the
Committee will consist of up to 11 members drawn from industry, they will be nominated by
the Commonwealth and states and territories. This is no guarantee of an appropriate
outcome.
Making more use of industry-based research and feedback
The comment is noted that ‘As the Committee will oversight the suite of industry-defined
qualifications it will need access to economic and industry specific analysis, to help it
schedule its program of work.’ No comment is provided noting the additional text that ‘The
source of this information is to be determined.’
Red-tape reduction
While it is agreed that ‘Reducing needless process and streamlining training package
development and endorsement are important objectives in this new approach’. This has been
a position industry has been seeking since the escalation of regulation and convoluted
processes from 2005 when the government took back control from industry.
The expectation that ‘Industry engagement from the start of the qualification development
cycle is expected to reduce red-tape’ is the case for the Resources and Infrastructure Industry
already noting again the flaw in the position that a qualification is equivalent to an Industry
Training Package.
Additional Comment
It is noted that the Government is committed to ensuring that industry decides the direction of
training to ensure graduates of the sector, including apprentices and trainees, are job ready
and that in support of this principle, Australian training ministers have agreed to establish the
Australian Industry Skills Committee (the Committee) as the channel for formal industry
advice on training in Australia. The Committee will advise ministers on the model for industry
defined qualifications and training that meets industry needs.
While noting that the Committee will consist of up to 11 members drawn from industry and
nominated by the Commonwealth and states and territories Industry is must receive far
greater and dominant determinative role than this.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 29
Approaches to procuring qualifications development
This submission is from the Resources and Infrastructure Industry. As such, the Discussion
question phrasing in reference to ‘your business’s needs’ has a necessary degree of
assumption.
The restriction to the 3 proposed approaches removes the opportunity to expand other
possibilities though a variation is proposed for consideration for the Resources and
Infrastructure Industry later in this submission. In noting this limitation, this submission
reluctantly limits itself to these 3 being:
Approach 1:
Purchase training package development as the need arises – Training
Development Panel
Approach 2
Industry assigns responsibilities to preferred organisations
Approach 3:
Government contracts for Designated VET Sector Bodies
Discussion questions
Which is your preferred approach? How would your chosen approach support your
business’s engagement in the development and codification of skills in training packages?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of this approach from your point of view? Do
you have any comments about the other approaches?
What are the sectoral coverage options that could best support your industry needs now and
into the future e.g. cross sectoral, broad sectors or other?
In your view, which of the approaches represents the best involvement of industry in this
process? Are there other approaches or models that should be considered?
What are the opportunities and challenges of the approaches for: industry, employers and
students?
Do you have any other comments?
The reconciled RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package provides for the
competency specification for the Civil Infrastructure, Coal Mining, Drilling, Quarrying and
Metalliferous Mining Industry Sectors. The relevant Industry Bodies have indicated that this
model is more effective in determining their individual sector competencies, it also provides a
strong base for cross sector skilling. There is provision for other sectors to be included in the
value chain approach but this must be under an industry self-selection arrangement rather
than an imposed arrangement.
The Resources and Infrastructure Industry notes the statement ‘The bodies would be
contracted by the Department through a service agreement for, say, a four or five year term’.
We support this notion and emphasise that at least this time period would be needed for
business planning purposes.
See comments on proposed Hybrid Model below.
Hybrid Model
In recognising that one size does not fit all, the Resources and Infrastructure Industry
proposes a model that builds on the best attributes from Models 2 and 3 from the Discussion
Paper.
This model proposes that the Resources and Infrastructure Industry assigns a body to
represent its skills needs in developing and maintaining its Competency Recognition
Framework (currently called the Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package) –
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 30
Model 2. This body would work with the Resources and Infrastructure Industry (as self
defined) to identify priorities (current and future) to meet its skilling needs – Model 2 – and to
be used by industry to set the direction for training providers in meeting these needs.
The Government partnership with the Resources and Infrastructure Industry in these
arrangements would be reflected in a contract between the Government and the industry
assigned body – Models 2 and 3 – including continuous assessment of engagement with
Industry – Model 3 – and annual validation of the industry for the continuation of the Hybrid
Model.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 31
AN IMPROVED RESOURCES AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR
TRAINING PACKAGE
Who the package serves
The Resources and Infrastructure sectors are global in nature.
Our ultimate vision is a set of global competencies that, like our companies and their
workforces, cross borders and are applicable everywhere our companies do business.
Our companies also operate on a value-chain rather than an industry sector basis.
Any future Resources and Infrastructure sector training package should reflect this. As per
above, this must be under an Industry self-selection arrangement rather than an imposed
arrangement.
As such, it is proposed that our training package be relevant not only to associated sectors,
such as oil and gas, but key supplier to the Resources and Infrastructure sectors.
The Training Package should also be named to reflect what it is – the Resources and
Infrastructure Sector Skills Competency Standards Package.
Stewardship
The Training Package is developed against industry specifications and is a vital tool in
validating the skills of the Resources and Infrastructure Industry workforce.
In this sense, the resources sector believes the appropriate stewardship of the RII Training
Package is crucial.
Company core business in the Resources and Infrastructure sectors is primarily devoted to
production and construction, not managing training packages and interfacing with
Governments.
It must remain under the control of an entity whose mission is ‘of industry, for industry and by
industry’.
The Resources and Infrastructure Industry would be concerned if time consuming and
bureaucratic processes were seen as necessary to achieve this end, with the associated loss
of certainty, integrity and skills. An organisation with SkillsDMC’s expertise would be difficult
to reproduce ‘from scratch’.
As such, we support the continuation of SkillsDMC’s longstanding stewardship of the RII
Training Package under a new model.
This is because SkillsDMC:
1. Subscribes to the concept of industry-led training. It favours the notion of industry
competencies over curriculum. It also favours skills development related to a real job
rather than ‘training for training’s sake’.
2. Is responsive to its constituent members – the RII Training Package is owned and
shaped by the members. 70 per cent of SkillsDMC Board members derive from
Resources and Infrastructure companies
3. Via its Constitution, has successfully excluded industrial relations issues from
consideration at both formal and informal meetings and has fostered a broad degree
of consensus between industry and unions on key training issues.
4. Has partnered with the industry to deliver valuable workforce development research
eg. partially funding the MCA’s 2013 KPMG Demographic Report on Long Distance
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 32
Commuting, which has been a valuable source of factual information during
discussions around FIFO.
5. Has delivered innovative skilling and workforce development projects including:
a. The VET Quality Project – in conjunction with the MCA, development of quality
criteria to enable companies to more effectively procure training services from
RTOs and TAFEs
b. The Cairns FIFO Co-ordinator Project – research and facilitation project that
helped establish Cairns as a viable FIFO hub
c.
The Cross Training Project – successful piloting of a community project where
school leavers and unemployed attained a Certificate II in resources and
agricultural qualifications leading to either further study or a real job
d. National Workforce Development Fund – resources sector conduit for
Commonwealth dollar-for-dollar NWDF funding – triggered major private sector
investment in skills development: companies spent $1.24 for each government
$1.00
6. Has an existing stock of knowledge around Training Package development,
supported by extensive industry networks, that could be lost if RII Training Package
stewardship is dispersed
7. Furthermore, an alternative custodian of the training package represent a risk to the
industry eg. an unscrupulous private sector training organisation with no organic
connection to the resources industry or an industry association seeking to profiteer or
empire-build
SkillsDMC is also instituting the concept of an independent chair to improve board
governance.
Furthermore, SkillsDMC also fulfils the following attributes as outlined in the Discussion
Paper:

Industry experience and connection – strong relationships with constituent industries,
including board and sector standing committee representation

Technical competence – strong in-house expertise

National coverage – RII training package used nationally

Responsiveness to national policy – a strong voice in national skills discussions

Independence – not conflicted ie. commercially related to any training organisations

Cross-industry understanding- recognition of other industry drivers in training
package
SkillsDMC’s comprehensive track record is outlined in Appendix A.
It is proposed that SkillsDMC be known as the Resources and Infrastructure Industry Skills
Competency Standards Council.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 33
CONCLUSION
The Resources and Infrastructure sectors welcome the opportunity to submit to the
Department of Industry’s ‘Industry Engagement in Training Package Development –
Discussion Paper: Towards a Contestable Model’.
We look forward to working with the Commonwealth to develop an improved Training
Package for our sectors, with the appropriate stewardship in an environment consistent with
job-relevant, industry-led training.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 34
APPENDIX A: ROLE AND RECORD OF SKILLSDMC
The RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package specifies the skills and
knowledge required for workers to perform effectively in the Coal Mining, Metalliferous Mining,
Civil Infrastructure, Quarrying (Extractive) and Drilling Industry Sectors.
SkillsDMC consults with industry stakeholders, governments, provincial agencies and other
organisations to produce the following endorsed components of the RII Training Package:

786 RII Units of Competency

29 Skill Sets

57 Qualifications

185 Units of Competency imported from other Industry Training Packages
The RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package can be accessed through the
Training.gov.au website.
SkillsDMC commitment to Industry-led training/collaboration with Industry
The primary forums SkillsDMC uses to engage with Industry are:

SkillsDMC Company Members

SkillsDMC Board

SkillsDMC Industry Leadership Forum

SkillsDMC Conference

Sector Standing Committees

Expert Panels and Reference Groups

Regional stakeholder meetings, workshops and consultations

Continuous Improvement Process
Details are included at Attachment A : Industry Engagement Strategy.
Industry commitment and contribution to RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry
Training Package and associated activity
Based on costing of industry participation through the Industry Engagement Strategy, direct
contribution from industry is estimated at around $1.1m per year (dollars and time
commitment). Added to this is that Industry is the only group that populates an Industry
Training Package and therefore singularly contributes the Intellectual Property, the value of
which is beyond estimation. It is reasonable to argue that the current contribution by Industry
makes it the senior partner. The development and endorsement process were not sought by
Industry and their costs must not be recouped from industry.
Numbers of those trained under RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training
Package
The number of enrolments in RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package
Units of Competency has seen strong growth since 2005. The top 20 Units of Competency
accounted for 53 per cent of total subject enrolments
Details are included at Attachment B: Contributing impact of Industry led as demonstrated via
the Industry Training Package.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 35
In addition, in July 2014 the National Centre for Vocational Education Research released
Students and Courses, 2013. A summary of the detail is included at Attachments C, D and E
and shows the following35:

Students enrolled by Industry Skills Council coverage shows a 168.7% increase for
SkillsDMC areas of coverage from 2009 to 2013

Students enrolled by parent Industry Training Package shows an increase for the
Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package of 168.7% from 2009 to
2013 reflecting the rationalising of the previously 6 separate packages into 1 package
and noting the students enrolled ranking rising from 18th to 12th

Qualification completions by parent Industry Training Package shows an increase for
the Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package of 131.8% from 2009 to
2012
In noting this data, it must be recalled that in 2012 the Minerals Council of Australia
commissioned the National Centre for Vocational Education Research to undertake a study
investigating the contributions of minerals operators to training. The study found that the
minerals sector spent some $1.15 billion on training during the financial year ending 30 June
2012, equivalent to almost 5.5% of total payroll. Almost 98% of this training expenditure was
Industry-funded with only 2% coming from government subsidies.
While not being singularly claimed as the reason, the implementation of the Industry Training
Package within the SkillsDMC arrangements has coincided with increased skilling take up
and reduced workplace accidents.
Details are included at Attachment F: Contributing impact of Industry-led as demonstrated via
the Industry Training Package’s contribution to safety in the workplace.
SkillsDMC National Workforce Development Fund successes
SkillsDMC facilitated the National Workforce Development Fund for the Resources and
Infrastructure Fund during which for every $1.00 contributed by the Commonwealth
Government, the industry commitment (through direct company investment) is a contribution
of $1.24. The values are as follows:
Period
2011/2012
to
2013/2014
Commonwealth
Government
contribution
Industry
contribution
$34,581,345
$42,865,831
Total Value
Contribution ratios (%)
Government
$77,447,176
Industry
44.7
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
55.3
| 36
SkillsDMC Services
SkillsDMC is engaged by the Australian Government to provide the function of the Industry
Skills Council to the Resources and Infrastructure Industry. As part of this function SkillsDMC
undertakes a range of activities including:

Engaging in Industry consultation

Developing and maintaining the RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training
Package, developed against industry specifications which is a vital tool in validating
the skills of the Resources and Infrastructure Industry workforce

Developing a range of Learning, Assessment and Support Materials to complement
the RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package

Developing the industry annual growth outlook analysis called an 'Environmental
Scan'
SkillsDMC Policy leadership/partnerships
SkillsDMC currently has Memorandums of Understanding with:

The Civil Contractors Federation

The Queensland Resources Council

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia
SkillsDMC is:

Currently contracted to provide the 2014 to 2015 New South Wales Resources and
Infrastructure Industry Training Advisory Board function under a combined purpose
specific company comprising the New South Wales Mining Council, the New South
Wales Civil Contractors Federation and the Australian Drilling Industry Association;
and

contracted as part of a consortium led by the Queensland Resources Council
together with Deloittes to research and provide the 2014 to 2015 Queensland Mining
forward skills intelligence analysis to the Queensland Ministerial Commission
SkillsDMC manages or has recently managed a number of Industry led activities including the
following:

Addressing Vocational Education and Training Quality: A Resources and
Infrastructure Industry Solution which in partnership with the Minerals Council of
Australia seeks to redress a key impediment to the take up of training by the resource
sector through the national training system

Cross Industry Training Program: Maximising Community Opportunities which in
partnership with the Minerals Council of Australia, the National Farmers’ Federation,
Queensland Revocasources Council, the Emerald Agriculture College and other
stakeholders in rural and regional Australia seeks to develop, implement and promote
an innovative and sustainable model for cross sector training and workforce
development (including but not limited to the mining, construction, agricultural and
transport industries) as a mechanism to sustain workforce participation and
employment

Sustaining Local Communities in Partnership with Resourcing the Mining Industry in
which SkillsDMC was developing a model for embedding skilling within Fly-in-Fly-out
arrangements which were to enhance the workforce development and sustainability
of source communities
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 37

Cairns based Fly-in-Fly-out pilot project to identify the potential Fly-in-Fly-out
workforce in the Cairns region and link this workforce to mining, construction and
infrastructure jobs required by existing and emerging resources projects in northern
and western Australia

National Apprenticeships Program aimed to convert the high number of Recognition
of Prior Learning outcomes into jobs

Independent Review of the Minerals Council of Australia Northern Territory Division
Indigenous Pre-employment Program Pilot (known as the Batchelor Program)

The Joint Civil Contractors Federation / SkillsDMC Civil Construction Occupation
Review project to provide government with a clear understanding of the issues arising
from the inaccurate ANZSCO codes assigned to civil construction occupations
In addition, SkillsDMC facilitated the participation of Industry in the following co-investment
skilling arrangements:

Critical Skills Investment Fund

Enterprise Based Productivity Places Program

National Workforce Development Fund

Workplace English, Language and Literacy
SkillsDMC has also partnered with:

The Minerals Council of Australia and KPMG in the study for residential profiling of
resource sector regions using ABS Census data to ascertain socio-economic
changes between 2006 and a detailed study of ABS Census data detailing the size
and distribution of Australia’s Fly-in-Fly-out / Drive-in-Drive-out workforce

James Cook University identifying and profiling Fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) workers in far
north Queensland
Governance - training not industrial relations
The primary characteristic in the development of the Industry Training Package is access to
Industry people who know and understand what is required at a practical level for an
employee to work safely and competently in the workplace. Employers and employees are
the groups most able to do this. Their individual place in the industrial spectrum is irrelevant.
SkillsDMC represents this bipartite approach that ensures the best possible content in the
Industry Training Package. To ensure that the focus of the bipartite arrangements is
exclusively on skilling specifications, the following is an extract from the company constitution:
1.2 Objects of the Company
The Company is formed with the object (both inside and outside Australia) to:
(i) Not involve itself in any way in matters of an industrial nature or support the
establishment of statutory positions
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 38
ATTACHMENT A: INDUSTRY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY
Strong and active Industry leadership is integral to ensuring that the workforce competency
needs of the Resources and Infrastructure Industry are met in order to drive productivity and
strengthen safe workplace practice. It is in pursuit of this objective that the RII Resources and
Infrastructure Industry Training Package (RII Training Package) is populated by Industry to
specify the skill and knowledge requirements for workers to perform effectively and work
safely within and across the drilling; coal mining; metalliferous mining; civil infrastructure; and
quarrying (extractive) Industry sectors.
Industry-led vocational education and training arrangements including within the National
Training System is the only pathway through which an open and uninterrupted skills supply
can be achieved. Industry-led vocational education and training arrangements can only
provide this pathway where it fulfils the knowledge and competency needs of Industry
regardless of the business cycle. Industry’s requirement of vocational education and training
arrangements is for the outcome to be knowledgeable and competent workforces that meet
the needs of Industry as a building block to productive and safe workplaces. This expected
outcome is a major input to sustainable, productive and safe workforces where employees
have transferable skills.
SkillsDMC is dedicated to placing Industry at the centre of the skilling agenda by engaging
with enterprises and key Industry organisations within the Resources and Infrastructure
Sectors to ensure greater relevance of industry led vocational education and training
arrangements including within the National Training System where Industry is the client and
the training system is the provider.
The primary forums SkillsDMC uses to engage with Industry are:

SkillsDMC Company Members

SkillsDMC Board

SkillsDMC Industry Leadership Forum

SkillsDMC Conference

Sector Standing Committees

Expert Panels and Reference Groups

Regional stakeholder meetings, workshops and consultations

Continuous Improvement Process
SkillsDMC Company Members
To establish and maintain the integrity of the coverage and bi-partite nature of the Company,
the Company members prescribed below have been identified as the point of contact with the
Company:
Civil Construction
The National Office of the Civil Contractors Federation.
Prescribed member: The President (or equivalent officer) for the time being of the Civil
Contractors Federation (National office).
Coal Mining
The Minerals Associations Forum which comprises:

The Minerals Council of Australia
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 39

The NSW Minerals Council

The Queensland Resources Council

The NT Minerals Council

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia

The South Australia Chamber of Mines and Energy

The Victorian Minerals and Energy Council

The Tasmanian Minerals Council
Prescribed Member : Minerals Council of Australia.
Construction Materials
A coalition of the following organisations:

The Institute of Quarrying Australia

Cement, Concrete and Aggregates Australia

Australian Asphalt Pavement Association Ltd
Prescribed Member : Cement, Concrete and Aggregates Australia.
Drilling
Australian Drilling Industry Association.
Prescribed Member : Australian Drilling Industry Association Limited.
Metalliferous Mining
The Minerals Associations Forum which comprises:

The Minerals Council of Australia

The NSW Minerals Council

The Queensland Resources Council

The NT Minerals Council

The Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia

The South Australia Chamber of Mines and Energy

The Victorian Minerals and Energy Council

The Tasmanian Minerals Council
Prescribed Member: Minerals Council of Australia.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union shall be the National Office of the
Mining & Energy Division.
Prescribed Member: Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union (CFMEU) National Office.
Australian Workers Union
The Australian Workers Union.
Prescribed Member: Australian Workers Union.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 40
SkillsDMC Board
Each prescribed member appoints one Director to the Board for each sector. A Director
appointed must be employed in an operating company within the Sector or within the Union.
Each prescribed member appoints an Alternate to the Director.
The broad strategic leadership of the company and the issues of focus for the company on
behalf of the Industry are determined by this group through engagement with Industry.
SkillsDMC Industry Leadership Forum
SkillsDMC’s Annual Industry Leadership Forum provides an invitation only platform for
Industry Leaders to discuss productivity outcomes driven by Industry-led skilling
environments. The Industry Leadership Forum forms a vital pillar of SkillsDMC’s Industry
engagement strategy.
The outcomes of Industry Leadership Forums have been vital in guiding the direction of
national policy formation for SkillsDMC and its member organisations. As an integral part of
SkillsDMC’s commitment to ongoing engagement with Industry, the Industry Leadership
Forum provides an opportunity for Industry to identify key issues that impact on or impede
their access to a highly skilled workforce to meet current and future demands.
SkillsDMC Conference
SkillsDMC hosts a Conference which brings together Industry leaders and decision makers to
discuss the challenges and opportunities confronting Industry. Directing the future of
workforce solutions, the Conference is an invaluable opportunity for both Industry and
SkillsDMC to shape the future of the Resources and Infrastructure Industry workforce.
Sector Standing Committees
The work of SkillsDMC covers the five Industry sectors of civil construction, coal mining,
construction materials, drilling and metalliferous mining. The Skills Competency Recognition
Framework covering all five sectors is held within the RII Resources and Infrastructure
Industry Training Package.
To ensure that sectoral advice is obtained, the SkillsDMC Board has invited each sector to
establish a Sector Standing Committee Chaired by the relevant Board Director (or the
Alternate Director). These Committees play a vital role in the identification of strategic advice
to the Board and the leadership role in the continuous improvement of the RII Training
Package. A key aspect of the latter role is to ensure that there is cross-sectoral reference
applied to coordinate improvement to the Training Package. Any changes made to the RII
Training Package must be supported by the relevant Sector Standing Committees before
being submitted to the SkillsDMC Board for approval.
The membership of each Committee is from Industry (operating and representative) with the
membership always being a simple majority from enterprises operating in the Industry sector.
Within the Sector Standing Committee arrangements is an Expert Panel to which any person
with relevant expertise and experience is able to nominate for membership. On nominating,
details of the sector(s) for which they are nominating, their experience (position, years held,
specific experience), certificates held and support of their current employer are provided.
From this Panel, Reference Groups are established.
The Sector Standing Committee may resolve identified issues relating to the RII Training
Package through two methods:

Via Committee consultation and research processes within its own combined
expertise and experience

Through the establishment of a Reference Group with specific Terms of Reference
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 41
The details for nominating to be on the Expert Panel are at
http://www.skillsdmc.com.au/files/Products/Training_Package/EoI_Expert_panel_v2.pdf.
Regional stakeholder meetings, workshops and consultations
SkillsDMC has established Regional Industry Meetings to engage with frontline Industry
representatives to gather Industry data and advice relevant to workforce planning and
development in the Resources and Infrastructure Sectors.
The Continuous Improvement Process
The RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package specifies the skills and
knowledge required for workers to perform effectively in the civil construction, coal mining,
construction materials, drilling and metalliferous mining industry sectors. It does not prescribe
how an individual should be trained. Trainers and supervisors develop learning strategies the 'how' - to support an individual learner's needs, abilities and circumstances.
A Continuous Improvement Register accessible through the SkillsDMC website
(http://www.skillsdmc.com.au/products/continuous_improvement_register) provides the entry
point for stakeholders (Industry and skilling service providers) to contribute to the continuous
improvement of the RII Training Package. It also provides a central communication and
monitoring system ensuring transparency and consistency in Training Package development.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 42
ATTACHMENT B: CONTRIBUTING IMPACT OF INDUSTRY-LED AS
DEMONSTRATED VIA THE INDUSTRY TRAINING PACKAGE
In 2013, the top 20 qualifications (of 74 in total) accounted for 94 per cent of students in the
Resources and Infrastructure Industry as follows:
Code
Sector
Qualification
Students
RII30809 Civil Infrastructure Certificate III In Civil Construction Plant Operations
12,815
RII30912 Civil Infrastructure Certificate III In Civil Construction
6,357
RII20209 General Mining
Certificate II In Surface Extraction Operations
3,956
RII30112 General Mining
Certificate III In Surface Extraction Operations
2,673
RII20109 General
Certificate II In Resources And Infrastructure Work Preparation
1,963
1,927
RII40712 Civil Infrastructure Certificate IV In Civil Construction Supervision
RII20712 Civil Infrastructure Certificate II In Civil Construction
1,424
RII31409 Civil Infrastructure Certificate III In Road Construction And Maintenance
970
RII30909 Civil Infrastructure Certificate III In Civil Construction
899
RII30111 General Mining
Certificate III In Surface Extraction Operations
674
RII30411 General Mining
Certificate III In Resource Processing
525
RII50509 Civil Infrastructure Diploma Of Civil Construction Design
520
RII20709 Civil Infrastructure Certificate II In Civil Construction
485
RII10109 General
Certificate I In Resources And Infrastructure Operations
436
RII40109 General Mining
Certificate IV In Surface Extraction Operations
421
RII20909 Drilling
Certificate II In Drilling Operations
414
RII20509 General Mining
Certificate II In Resource Processing
407
RII40709 Civil Infrastructure Certificate IV In Civil Construction Supervision
391
360
RII30109 General Mining
Certificate III In Surface Extraction Operations
RII31809 Drilling
Certificate III In Drilling Operations
242
Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research
The number of enrolments in Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package Units of
Competency has seen strong growth since 2005. The top 20 Units of Competency accounted
for 53 per cent of total subject enrolments as follows:
Code
RIIOHS201A RIICOM201A RIICCM201A RIICCM203A RIICCM202A RIIBEF201B RIISAM203B RIICCM207A RIICCM208A RIISAM204B RIIRIS201B RIIMPO318B Title
Work Safely And Follow OHS Policies And Procedures
Communicate In The Workplace
Carry Out Measurements And Calculations
Read And Interpret Plans And Specifications
Identify, Locate And Protect Underground Services
Plan And Organise Work
Use Hand And Power Tools
Spread And Compact Materials Manually
Carry Out Basic Levelling
Operate Small Plant And Equipment
Conduct Local Risk Control
Conduct Civil Construction Skid Steer Loader Operations
Handle Resources And Infrastructure Materials And Safely RIISAM201A Dispose Of Non Toxic Materials
RIIOHS205A Control Traffic With Stop
RIICCM205A Carry Out Manual Excavation
RIIWMG203A Drain And Dewater Civil Construction Site
RIIOHS302A Implement Traffic Management Plan
RIICCM206A Support Plant Operations
RIICCM210A Install Trench Support
RIIOHS204A Work Safely At Heights
Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research
Enrolments
19,832
16,982
12,815
12,430
11,071
9,536
9,455
8,954
8,607
8,542
8,424
8,126
8,027
7,948
7,720
7,329
6,979
6,912
6,446
6,412
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 43
ATTACHMENT C: STUDENTS BY INDUSTRY SKILLS COUNCIL
Students ('000) by Industry Skills Councils, Australia, 2009–13
Industry Skills Councils
2009
2010
2011
2012
AgriFood
83.5
87.8
91.6
90.7
Auto Skills Australia
38.9
40.1
40.8
44.1
Community Services and Health
172.2
204.2
230.0
253.8
Construction and Property Services
97.8
125.2
128.6
125.2
E-oz Energy
44.7
51.4
54.7
54.0
ForestWorks
5.1
4.8
4.9
2.8
Government
9.2
10.8
12.6
11.7
Innovation and Business
304.7
336.9
386.3
403.0
Manufacturing
80.9
87.3
96.7
105.0
Service
236.9
248.5
273.6
282.6
SkillsDMC
15.0
18.2
26.4
34.6
Transport and Logistics
41.1
43.5
53.6
58.1
World Vision Australia
Total training packages assigned
1 130.0
1 258.7
1 399.8
1 465.5
to industry skills councils
Total non-training packages
576.7
540.3
482.1
477.7
Total students
1 706.7
1 799.0
1 881.9
1 943.2
Source: 2009-13 National VET Provider Collection
A dash (-) represents a true zero figure, with no data reported in this category.
2013
88.2
45.6
269.0
126.3
52.6
2.8
10.4
345.6
102.9
237.6
40.3
72.0
1 393.2
484.3
1 877.5
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 44
ATTACHMENT D: STUDENTS BY PARENT INDUSTRY TRAINING
PACKAGE
Students by parent training packages, Australia, 2009–13
2009
2010
2011
2012
Training package
('000)
('000)
('000)
('000)
Community Services (CHC)
120.6
144.2
171.8
195.0
Business Services (BSA, BSB)
145.4
174.7
221.5
233.9
Tourism, Hospitality and Events (SIT, THH,
139.5
136.2
142.0
147.3
THT)
Construction, Plumbing & Services Integrated
75.6
101.0
101.3
99.9
Framework (BCF, BCG, BCP, CPC)
Transport and Logistics (TAL, TDT, TLI)
35.7
37.9
48.0
52.3
Health (HLT)
51.6
60.1
58.3
58.9
Metal and Engineering (MEM)
50.8
49.9
50.5
53.0
Electrotechnology (UEE, UTE, UTL)
42.5
49.3
52.2
51.4
Agriculture, Horticulture and Conservation
50.1
53.2
54.5
52.2
and Land Management (AHC, RTD, RTE,
RTF, RUA, RUH)
Automotive Industry Retail, Service and
38.5
39.6
40.3
43.4
Repair (AUR)
Financial Services (FNA, FNB, FNS)
39.9
43.3
47.8
48.3
Resources and Infrastructure (BCC, DRT,
15.0
18.2
26.4
34.6
MNC, MNM, MNQ, RII)
Retail Services (SIR, WRP, WRR, WRW)
47.0
52.0
60.0
62.5
Information and Communications Technology
47.2
44.2
40.7
38.5
(ICA)
Training and Education (BSZ, TAA, TAE)
30.7
34.4
36.6
40.3
Sport, Fitness and Recreation (SIS, SRC,
21.0
25.9
35.2
36.4
SRF, SRO, SRS)
Property Services (CPP, PRD, PRM, PRS)
22.2
24.2
27.3
25.3
Hairdressing (SIH, WRH)
18.5
21.2
21.1
20.1
Beauty (SIB, WRB)
8.2
10.7
13.2
14.4
Visual Arts, Craft and Design (CUV)
12.7
13.3
12.7
13.1
Food Processing Industry (FDF)
10.4
10.1
11.1
12.1
Manufacturing (MCM, MSA)
5.8
9.8
16.6
21.2
Australian Meat Industry (MTM)
12.2
11.5
10.8
12.5
Furnishing (LMF, MSF)
9.4
10.3
11.1
11.7
Animal Care and Management (ACM, RUV)
7.1
8.3
9.4
9.9
Sustainability (MSS)
0.0
0.4
Screen and Media (CUF)
8.3
8.8
8.7
9.2
Music (CUS)
5.5
6.2
6.1
6.2
Laboratory Operations (MSL, PML)
4.3
5.2
5.6
5.8
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (LMT)
5.7
6.2
6.0
5.6
Maritime (TDM)
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.3
Public Services (PSP)
3.8
4.7
4.8
5.2
Chemical, Hydrocarbons and Oil Refining
1.6
2.7
4.1
4.3
(PMA)
Entertainment (CUE)
3.4
3.4
3.9
4.2
Integrated Telecommunications (ICT)
5.6
1.9
2.0
2.9
Library, Information and Cultural Services
3.4
3.7
3.8
3.7
2013
('000)
212.1
186.5
133.0
101.2
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
66.6
56.9
51.4
50.5
48.6
45.0
44.1
40.3
39.4
35.9
35.7
29.5
25.0
18.1
15.9
14.4
14.2
12.3
11.9
11.1
10.6
9.6
8.5
5.8
5.8
4.9
4.9
4.6
4.2
3.9
3.8
3.2
| 45
(CUL)
Printing and Graphic Arts (ICP)
Forest and Forest Products (FPI)
Water Industry (NWP, UTW)
2.8
4.9
1.3
2.9
4.6
1.8
2.5
4.8
3.9
2.5
2.7
2.6
Students by parent training packages, Australia, 2009–13
2009
2010
2011
2012
Training package
('000)
('000)
('000)
('000)
Public Safety (PUA)
2.6
2.9
2.2
2.4
Transmission, Distribution and Rail
(UET, UTT)
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.3
Racing Industry (RGR)
1.6
2.4
3.6
2.2
Aeroskills (MEA)
1.7
1.9
1.3
1.5
Floristry (SFL, WRF)
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
Plastics, Rubber and Cablemaking
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.3
(PMB)
Seafood Industry (SFI)
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.8
Foundation Skills (FSK)
Correctional Services (CSC)
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
Automotive Industry Manufacturing
(AUM)
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
Local Government (LGA)
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
Aviation (AVI, TDA, ZQF)
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
Live Performance (CUA)
0.0
0.1
Manufactured Mineral Products
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
(PMC)
Electricity Supply Industry 0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
Generation Sector (UEP, UTP)
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Industries (FPP)
Gas Industry (UEG, UTG)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Sugar Milling (SUG)
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
Defence (DEF)
Funeral Services (SIF, WFS)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Caravan Industry (THC)
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.1
Woolworths (ZWA)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AgriFood (AGF, AGR)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total students
1 130.0
1 258.7
1 399.8
1 465.5
2.7
2.7
2.5
2013
('000)
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 393.2
Source: 2009-13 National VET Provider Collection
A dash (-) represents a true zero figure, with no data reported in this category.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 46
ATTACHMENT E: QUALIFICATION COMPLETIONS BY PARENT
INDUSTRY TRAINING PACKAGE
Qualification completions by parent training packages, Australia, 2009–12
2009 2010 2011 2012
Training package
('000) ('000) ('000) ('000)
Business Services (BSA, BSB)
52.8
65.9
82.4
96.1
Community Services (CHC)
47.8
56.2
68.2
77.2
Tourism, Hospitality and Events (SIT, THH, THT)
29.4
31.5
35.0
39.9
Retail Services (SIR, WRP, WRR, WRW)
18.0
21.8
27.2
32.9
Training and Education (BSZ, TAA, TAE)
15.0
19.0
24.2
25.2
Construction, Plumbing & Services Integrated Framework
(BCF, BCG, BCP, CPC)
15.4
18.4
19.9
23.9
Transport and Logistics (TAL, TDT, TLI)
8.8
10.7
17.4
20.8
Sport, Fitness and Recreation (SIS, SRC, SRF, SRO,
7.3
9.2
15.2
20.1
SRS)
Health (HLT)
11.9
14.6
16.9
17.9
Financial Services (FNA, FNB, FNS)
12.9
13.4
15.1
17.3
Agriculture, Horticulture and Conservation and Land
Management (AHC, RTD, RTE, RTF, RUA, RUH)
12.3
13.2
15.9
16.5
Automotive Industry Retail, Service and Repair (AUR)
11.2
12.1
13.2
13.6
Information and Communications Technology (ICA)
14.8
13.5
13.9
13.0
Property Services (CPP, PRD, PRM, PRS)
8.2
12.4
15.9
12.4
Metal and Engineering (MEM)
11.4
11.3
11.4
11.7
Electrotechnology (UEE, UTE, UTL)
7.7
10.0
12.0
11.4
Resources and Infrastructure (BCC, DRT, MNC, MNM,
4.4
4.8
9.4
10.2
MNQ, RII)
Manufacturing (MCM, MSA)
1.4
2.1
4.5
7.7
Hairdressing (SIH, WRH)
6.3
6.6
6.6
6.9
Beauty (SIB, WRB)
3.6
4.1
5.2
5.9
Screen and Media (CUF)
3.1
3.6
3.5
4.3
Visual Arts, Craft and Design (CUV)
2.7
3.2
3.5
4.2
Animal Care and Management (ACM, RUV)
2.6
3.1
3.4
3.8
Food Processing Industry (FDF)
3.1
2.8
3.9
3.4
Australian Meat Industry (MTM)
4.1
4.0
3.4
3.3
Public Services (PSP)
1.9
2.0
2.4
2.9
Furnishing (LMF, MSF)
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.8
Music (CUS)
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.6
Maritime (TDM)
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.6
Laboratory Operations (MSL, PML)
1.4
1.7
1.9
2.2
Textiles, Clothing and Footwear (LMT)
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.1
Chemical,Hydrocarbons and Oil Refining (PMA)
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.6
Library, Information and Cultural Services (CUL)
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.5
Floristry (SFL, WRF)
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.9
Integrated Telecommunications (ICT)
2.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
Public Safety (PUA)
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.8
Water Industry (NWP, UTW)
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
Printing and Graphic Arts (ICP)
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
Racing Industry (RGR)
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 47
Qualification completions by parent training packages, Australia, 2009–12
2009
2010
2011
2012
Training package
('000)
('000)
('000)
('000)
Transmission, Distribution and Rail (UET, UTT)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.7
Entertainment (CUE)
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.7
Aeroskills (MEA)
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
Seafood Industry (SFI)
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
Forest and Forest Products (FPI)
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
Local Government (LGA)
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
Automotive Industry Manufacturing (AUM)
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
Correctional Services (CSC)
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.2
Plastics, Rubber and Cablemaking (PMB)
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.1
Aviation (AVI, TDA, ZQF)
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Gas Industry (UEG, UTG)
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
Sustainability (MSS)
0.0
0.1
Caravan Industry (THC)
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industries (FPP)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Manufactured Mineral Products (PMC)
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Live Performance (CUA)
0.0
0.0
Funeral Services (SIF, WFS)
0.0
0.0
0.0
AgriFood (AGF, AGR)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Electricity Supply Industry - Generation Sector (UEP,
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
UTP)
Sugar Milling (SUG)
0.0
0.0
Woolworths (ZWA)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total training package completions
338.6
390.3
473.1
527.2
Source: 2009-12 National VET Provider Collection
A dash (-) represents a true zero figure, with no data reported in this category.
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 48
ATTACHMENT F: CONTRIBUTING IMPACT OF INDUSTRY-LED AS
DEMONSTRATED VIA THE INDUSTRY TRAINING PACKAGE’S
CONTRIBUTION TO SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 49
ENDNOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
SkillsDMC Environmental Scan (unpublished), SkillsDMC, 2015, p.6 (BIS Shrapnel
research)
Ibid
‘The Coalition’s Policy to Deliver the Infrastructure of the 21st Century’, Liberal Party
of Australia, September 2013
‘Coalition Will Reboot the Mining Boom: Robb’, SBS, 8 September 2013
‘Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda’, Australian Government, 2014,
p.61
Ibid
Ibid, p.72
Ibid, p.49
‘Workplace Futures - Realising Our Human Capital Potential’, VECCI, 2009
`Resourcing the Future’, National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce Report,
Commonwealth of Australia, July 2010
’Skills for All Australians’, Commonwealth of Australia, March 2012
Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey (ALLS), Australian Bureau of Statistics,
November 2007
‘National Workforce Literacy Project – Report on Employers Views on Workplace
Literacy and Numeracy Skills, Australian Industry Group, May 2010
SkillsDMC Environmental Scan (unpublished), op cit, p.41
Ibid, p.42
Vocational Education and Training Workforce’, Productivity Commission Research
Report’, Productivity Commission, April 2011
Ibid
`Catching up: learning from the best school systems in East Asia’, Grattan Institute,
February 2012
Ibid
‘New Low for Vocational Training Graduates’, The Australian, 10 December 2014
Vocational Education Training Reform, www.vetreform,industry.gov.au ,Department
of Industry, 2014
‘Australian Government Bolsters Skills and Training with $68m of New Funding and
New Standards’, Australian Skills Quality Authority, 8 October 2014
‘Quality Skilling and the Future Workforce - The Demand/Supply Dynamic’,
SkillsDMC Conference 2014, Presentation by Chris James – Minerals Council of
Australia, 2014
Minerals Council of Australia submission, ‘Inquiry into the Role of the Technical and
Further Education System and its Operation’, House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Education and Employment 2013
‘Quality Skilling and the Future Workforce - The Demand/Supply Dynamic’, op cit
Vocational Education Training Reform, www.vetreform,industry.gov.au, op cit
‘Greater say for industry on training package design’, media release by Minister Ian
Macfarlane, 31 October 2014
RII Resources and Infrastructure Industry Training Package, www.skillsdmc.com.au
‘Greater say for industry on training package design’, op cit
‘Industry Engagement in Training Package Development: Discussion Paper –
Towards a Contestable Model’, Department of Industry, 2014
A Compact with Industry/A Compact with Resources and Infrastructure Industry,
Industry Skills Councils Joint Conference on Skills for Productivity, 2013
Vocational Education Training Reform, www.vetreform,industry.gov.au, op cit
‘Report on Government Services’, Productivity Commission, 2014
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 50
34.
35.
‘Skilling Outcomes Versus the Training System’, presentation by Steve McDonald
SkillsDMC, International Mining and Resources Conference, 2014
Information contained in this publication is, unless stated otherwise, derived from the
National VET Provider Collection, which is compiled under the Australian Vocational
Education and Training Management Information Statistical Standard (AVETMISS),
Release 6.1
Industry Engagement In Training Package Development - Towards A Contestable Model
| 51