Chapter 5 - Consultation and engagement


Chapter 5 - Consultation and engagement

5.1        Being responsive to industry requires Industry Skills Councils (ISCs) to work with a variety of stakeholders to ensure training packages reflect industry skill needs. First and foremost, ISCs are required to work with industry to establish a clear understanding of current and emerging skills needs. However, the need for cooperation also extends across jurisdictional and sectoral boundaries, and while the ISCs are national bodies they must work extensively with a range of state, territory and regional and rural organisations.[1] This presents significant challenges to ISCs. This chapter examines the relationship between ISCs and some of their stakeholders.

Consultation

5.2        A wide range of submitters expressed views on the importance of consultation with their relevant ISC. Many praised the consultative approach of the ISCs they work with.[2]  One of these was Racing Queensland, who said:

It is clear that close cooperation and continuous engagement is the only workable approach to ensure that industry needs are communicated thoroughly, professionally, timely and with an appropriately formed consensus viewpoint directly to the government... ...We commend Agrifood Skills Australia for its support and expertise at all levels in ensuring that racing industry needs are acknowledged and acted upon. No other organisation can provide the continuous support and activity required. This can only occur through a considerable period of prolonged stability, continuous effort and application of expertise that is fully informed by closely working with industry.[3]

5.3        The Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) said of the Transport and Logistics ISC (T&LISC):

The T&LISC has, with the support of the maritime sector stakeholders, ensured that its focus and delivery is inclusive of the requirements and needs of regional interests. Maritime operations occur in all regions of Australia, including remote regions. The T&LISC has, through use of stakeholders advisory groups and workforce reference groups ensured that all sectors and regions in which maritime operations occur are represented and/or their interests, are represented in its work.[4]

5.4        One of many stakeholders who submitted in support of ForestWorks, the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union (CFMEU) stated that:

ForestWorks consultative nature helps determine its expanding significance to the industry...ForestWorks through its methods and actions has cemented itself as an organisation which is well respected, highly valued and vigorously supported by the industry and its workforce.[5]

5.5        A number of ISCs outlined their consultation processes for the committee. One of these, the Construction and Property Services ISC (CPSISC), said:

CPSISC has established a Continuous Improvement Management System which enables anyone to track a particular issue under consideration and to input into the development process. This can be found under the CPSISC web site. In our teleconference earlier this week we suggested further workshops for those IAB’s [industry advisory boards] who wanted more information on the system...Our business plan is on our website and our key projects are summarised therein. We also produce detailed projects reports at all Construction Industry Advisory Committee Meetings and State IABs have access to them through their participation in those meetings.[6]

5.6        Mr Justin Scarr, Chair of Service Skills Australia (SSA), impressed upon the committee that providing effective consultation mechanisms was no easy task, but added:

...The workforce development component that we have now allows us to legitimately go out and talk to industry, and not confound them with skills talk. Our job is actually to talk to them to find out what they want and then to translate that into training speak and competency standards that are meaningful to them, but also meet our requirements in terms of the structure of the package and the content. I do not think that small businesses particularly want somebody to come and talk to them about their training needs—they think we want to sell them a program. We want to help them analyse what skills they are using in workplace and will need in the future.[7]

5.7        Nonetheless, the committee also heard from some stakeholders who considered improvement was necessary. The Queensland Tourism Industry Council called for ISCs to increase the level of communication with state, territory and regional stakeholders and to focus more on disseminating information and knowledge to stakeholders through training providers.[8] The Equine Dental Association of Australia (EDAA) reported inadequate opportunities for consultation with the relevant ISC—in this case AgriFood.[9]

5.8        The Department of Defence reported that it is in the unusual position of engaging with all 11 ISCs to varying degrees. It noted:

While having the same broad role the 11 ISC seem to have difference operational methods. The ISCs have their individual strengths and weaknesses but do not appear to operate to a collective standard. Consequently, ISC miss opportunities for improvement and efficiency gains through the sharing of ideas, processes and lessons learned. Defence is not proposing a single ISC but believe that the ISC Forum needs to explore greater synergies to better enable stakeholder engagement particularly with enterprise RTO.[10]

5.9        Defence suggested that ISCs continue to explore improvement and efficiency gains through the sharing of ideas, processes and lessons learned.[11]

5.10      The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) pointed out that by their very nature ISCs were expected to '...be all things to all people', and that they were tasked with reaching compromises between individual stakeholders with sometimes very divergent positions.[12]

5.11      ACCI identified a number of characteristics common to ISCs with effective consultation processes:

  • They provide industries with access to structures (such as advisory committees) which allow issues to be addressed;
  • They maintain productive relationships with state industry advisory structures and make use of the 'on the ground' intelligence;
  • Their consultation processes are not limited to electronic and online mechanisms;
  • They apply good judgement when balancing the views of organisations with large membership bases and individual 'squeaky wheels'; and
  • They adhere to validation processes with require business, industry organisations and unions to sign off on industry standards and the gathering of industry intelligence.[13]

Committee view

5.12      The committee believes that although there can be no one-size-fits-all approach to consultation which will satisfy all industry stakeholders, some ISCs clearly perform better than others, as evidenced by the submissions received. The committee encourages ISCs to focus closely on the importance of consultation, and to consider the characteristics listed by ACCI in framing their future consultation arrangements.  

Networking between ISCs

5.13      T&LISC advised that networking arrangements across the ISCs play an important role in 'maximising the effectiveness of ISC capability nationally and in the exchange of information and strategies that assist in the development of the VET system'. The main tools are the ISC CEOs Forum and the ISC Chairs Forum.

5.14      Skills Australia noted that ISCs work individually and collectively on policy and implementation. In terms of collective activity Skills Australia provided the following examples:

...all ISCs contributed to a joint response on sustainability: Environmental Sustainability: An Industry Response. Further, the ISCs collectively developed a website for small to medium enterprises to provide assistance on issues involving: human resources, innovation, technology, marketing, legal, insurance and finance matters.[14]

5.15      Working together allows ISCs to pool their knowledge resources and share best practice. The joint ISC submission concluded that:

The creation of 11 Industry Skills Councils has enabled an unprecedented level of cross-industry collaboration and leadership on skills and workforce development. Not since the National Training System was conceived has this been possible. As singularly focussed organisations, without affiliation but with vast stakeholder networks, complemented by deep levels of expertise, ISCs are without parallel.[15]

5.16      While the ISC network arrangements are working well, the MUA sees scope for further improvement particularly in training package development and research and development initiatives.[16]

ISC Forum

5.17      The ISC Forum was established in 2005. It convenes every two to three months and meetings are held by chairs or CEOs—sometimes both groups—depending on emerging priorities. Its aim is 'to advance national VET priorities and matters of cross-industry relevance'. It is based on agreed terms of reference but it is not an entity in its own right. The Forum meets regularly with the Chair and Chief Executive of Skills Australia and its full board as appropriate.[17]

5.18      Forum meetings rotate around jurisdictions to enable ISCs to meet with state training boards and the chairs of the local industry training advisory boards.[18]

5.19      The Chairs of the ISCs also form part of the Strategic Industry Forum convened by Skills Australia.[19]

Relationship with state and territory bodies, including ITABS

5.20      ISCs have interaction with their state counterparts, known as state industry training advisory bodies (ITABs), where they exist.[20] The role of ITABs is to:

Reflect the training interests and issues of the broad and comprehensive range of stakeholders in the industry sector(s);

  • Provide advice on the skills and training interests of the industry sector;
  • Represent the skills needs and career development requirements for employment in the industry sector in the work of GSA;
  • Identify the priorities for training projects and product development;
  • Provide advice on the communication strategies which meet the needs and protocols of the sector;
  • Nominate the membership and operations of national project specific reference groups or national steering committees; [and]
  • Endorse national project proposals and project plans for industry sector projects.[21]

5.21      The committee heard some examples of the communication and cooperation between ISCs and ITABs. Manufacturing Skills Australia (MSA) submitted that it worked closely with training advisory bodies where they exist in different jurisdictions. A number of meetings are held throughout the year and two-way feedback is encouraged.[22]

5.22      Likewise, AgriFood CEO Arthur Blewitt said that his organisation worked with ITABs and had good relationships with them. He added that:

We rely heavily on them for input into our intelligence gathering and also for our local representation. For example the industry training advisory board in Western Australia is chaired by one of our directors and that is a good example of how you work with them. We meet with them and, in fact, we are meeting with them this Thursday to try and make sure that we understand what each other are doing and also about the issues we are facing in challenges around data and intelligence and how they can work together. They are also key advisors on training package implementation. Our focus on training packages is often about assessment and getting good outcomes. Working with those groups is helpful.[23]

5.23      CPSISC advised that it engaged closely with the states and territories through a variety of means. The ISC holds teleconferences every six weeks with state ITABs, runs consultation workshops with them and meets for face to face meetings annually. CPSISC often funds them to conduct projects where they have relevant expertise.[24] CPSISC also advised that they have contracted various state advisory bodies to run projects on a panel basis in which all ITABs are invited to participate.[25]

5.24      The utility of ISCs working closely with ITABs was underlined by the Primary Industries Skills Council of South Australia, which pointed out that ITABs and ISCs faced many of the same issues, such as addressing deficiencies in learning and training cultures in some industries.[26]

5.25      Innovation and Business Skills Australia (IBSA) reported on the way it works with ITABs as well as state and territory governments:

...We adjust our industry engagement strategies to complement existing activities in States and Territories. We take into account the different approaches taken and different level of resources allocated to industry engagement by each State and Territory when designing out engagement strategies. In this way we can maximise our combined resources and cover the broadest range of business needs. We also maintain an ongoing liaison with State and Territory governments and their industry advisory bodies to ensure that we understand each jurisdiction's VET and economic development policies and how they relate to our industry sectors. Regular engagement strategies include an annual roadshow in every state and territory, an annual conference with state and territory advisory bodies, shared forums and professional development with state and territory advisory bodies, validation of our Environmental Scans with all states and territories, and continuous engagement on Training package issues through interactive online tools such as a Review and Feedback register and a Virtual Helpdesk[27]

5.26      The ElectroComms and Energy Utilities Industry Skills Council (EE-Oz) reported that it maintains an open and consultative structure and actively pursues engagement with all stakeholders in the training system, a goal which is captured in the EE-Oz Constitution.[28] Some of its networks include:

  • State and territory industry training advisory bodies;
  • State and territory training authorities;
  • State an territory industry regulators;
  • Regionally based businesses;
  • Rural and remote communities;
  • Nationally dispersed RTOs; and
  • Relevant state government departments.[29]

5.27      IBSA advised that the stronger roles of ISCs set out in the 'Skilling Australia for the Future' policy has resulted in ISCs working together more strategically in recent years. This occurs through:

  • Forums of ISC chairs and ISC CEOs four times a year;
  • Joint meetings with state and territory jurisdictions;
  • Sponsorships of officer level cross industry groups which meet about specific issues;
  • The development and maintenance of an ISC website to promote the collective work of the ISCs and provide a portal to the individual councils;
  • The production of consolidated, formal advice to government on issues affecting industry skills needs which includes the following reports:
  • Environmental Sustainability: An industry response;
  • Training Packages [a story less told]; and
  • Creating Australia's Future: Together.[30]

5.28      Forestworks advised that it assists state ITABs by contributing to their costs to travel and attend various national functions:

State ITABs assist the overall national effort by working with industry in their state and providing information to ForestWorks regarding industry viewpoints and intelligence. ForestWorks co-ordinates, supports, chairs and/or administers the Industry Training Advisory Boards (ITABs) for the forest, wood, paper and timber products industry. In Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales and Queensland, ForestWorks has direct contract responsibilities for the state ITABs.[31]

Room for improvement

5.29      The committee also heard that the effectiveness of ITABs has suffered due to the removal of dedicated Commonwealth funding to support them. ACCI, for example, submitted that this cut in funding to ITABs has led to their functionality being reduced, and that 'ISCs have started to take up some of the ITAB role.'[32] The Construction Industry Training Advisory board, NSW, also commented on the removal of government funding to the state and territory network and the subsequent drop in cooperation between ISCs and state and territory ITABs.[33]

5.30      The Victorian Building Industry Consultative Council Industry Advisory Body (BICCIAB) stated that the links between CPSISC and BICCIAB should be better defined which would improve the effectiveness of CPSISC. It suggested that links could be improved through a memorandum of understanding; by establishing a mechanism by which BICCIAB provides regular industry advice to CPSISC; and by state representation on the CPSISC board. It also suggested the reallocation of some project work to BICCIAB.[34]

5.31      The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) drew the committee's attention to the lack of structures available for participation by advisory bodies; however this particular issue was satisfactorily resolved by CITB and CPSISC during the course of this inquiry.[35]

5.32      The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry pointed out that Tasmania does not have ITABs so ISCs cannot utilise this source of industry advice. They submitted that with without thorough consultation the needs of Tasmania cannot be accurately reflected by ISCs. It added that apart from SkillsDMC and ForestWorks the current ISC arrangements are not adequate to reflect the needs of Tasmania. To address this it suggested more ISC representatives be based in Tasmania.[36]

5.33      Qantas sought 'clearer definition of the relationship between ISCs and the states and territories', adding that 'further clarity on the interrelationship between ISCs would also be beneficial'.[37]

5.34      The National Electrical and Communications Association added that ISCs were not exclusively responsible for maintaining productive working relationships with state bodies:

The ability of ISCs to undertake this work at State/Territory level is variable and highly dependent on the expertise and support provided by State ITABs. The information available at regional level is inadequate and the Federal Government should allocate industry with adequate resources to fill this information gap.[38]

The need for formal partnerships

5.35      One theme that emerged in submissions was the inconsistent treatment of state and territory industry advisory bodies and the need to establish genuine partnerships. The NSW PSITAB noted the benefits of formal arrangements, which it argued:

...strengthen[ed] relations between national and state bodies, minimise[d] duplication in consultation with stakeholders and is an efficient means of utilising the limited amount of funding given to training advisory services.[39]

5.36      It added that:

...Some ISCS have established formal relationships with ITABS through MOUs or contracts whereby services are performed by the ITAB on behalf of the Industry Skills Council. Other good practice models include the nomination of a state and territory ITAB representative on sector advisory committees and the conduct of regular meetings and teleconference with their state colleagues.[40]

5.37      ACCI supported positive relationships between ISCs and ITABs, adding that the latter should complement and add value to industry data collected—for example during the environmental scan process—and should not be duplicating ISC processes.[41] In this regard, ACCI advised ISCs are effective when:

...they have extensive consultation processes where all industries have access to structures to deal with their issues such as Sector Advisory Committees or equivalents. Similarly they have in place good relationships with state industry advisory structures and reach to local 'on the ground' intelligence...[42]

5.38      The Australian Automotive Industry Association (AAIA) suggested a review to ensure the relationships between the ISCs and the state bodies are effective in gathering intelligence and using of products and services.[43]

Committee view

5.39      The committee recognises that close working relationships between ISCs and ITABs are essential, particularly with a view to effectively addressing rural and regional skills-related issues. The committee believes that, despite their best intentions, ISCs will have difficulty providing the kind of customised, local knowledge required to adequately tackle regional workforce needs without highly effective linkages with state counterparts. To this end, the committee would like to see clearer protocols and linkages between ISCs and ITABs.

ISC relationship with Skills Australia

5.40      Skills Australia was announced in the Australian Government’s Skilling Australia for the Future policy as a body to provide advice to the Minister on current, emerging and future workforce development needs and workforce skills needs. Its objectives are to identify training priorities to respond to those needs, increase workforce participation, improve productivity and competitiveness, identify and address skills shortages and promote the development of a highly skilled workforce.

5.41      Skills Australia was established by the Skills Australia Act 2008, which received Royal Assent on 20 March 2008.  The Act establishes operational arrangements and specifies that members be appointed by the Minister and have experience in academia, the provision of education and training, economics and industry.

5.42      Skills Australia reported that its engagement with ISCs occurs in a range of fora, including the Strategic Industry Forum which is a network of ISCs, State Training Boards and peak bodies convened by Skills Australia, and through regular meetings between the Chief Executive Officer of Skills Australia and the CEOs of ISCs. This partnership is underpinned by a Memoranda of Understanding.[44]

5.43      There is a strong relationship between Skills Australia and the ISCs. Skills Australia supports the ISCs' role in national workforce development—including through its involvement in the EBPPP—and uses the ISCs' industry intelligence to inform responses to emerging issues in particular sectors.

Relationship with TAFE

5.44      The Australian Technical and Further Education (TAFE) network is the largest and most diverse tertiary education system in Australia. Australia's TAFE institutions are major agencies responsible for delivering training packages. TAFE Directors Australia (TDA) is the national body representing 59 TAFE institutions. It reported that at the national level TAFE's relationship with ISCs is fostered through its agreement with DEEWR. TDA explained:

The objectives of this agreement include the development of strategies and networks for TAFE Institutes to engage effectively with ISCs and to engage in joint initiatives that will assist in better Training Package implementation. While TDA and the ISCs have not necessarily reached definitive shared platforms on all issues, both parties have engaged in a series of fruitful forums to better understand each others' perspectives.[45]

5.45      TDA added that 'at the industry specific level there are a growing number of examples of how collaboration between an ISC and TAFE has generated measurable improvements in the quality and relevance of vocational education and training.'[46]

Relationship with small business

5.46      The committee was told by a number of submitters of deficiencies in the relationship between ISCs and the small business sector. Specifically, the problem centred on a lack of consultation. Restaurant and Catering Australia, for example, contended that:

...[I]ndustry skills councils are totally ill-equipped to deal with the training system at the individual enterprise level. Other than forming a relationship with the very large enterprises (over the $20 million mark, or which there are 10 in the restaurant and catering industry), the skills council has no relationship with enterprises.[47]

5.47      Restaurant and Catering added that while ISCs provide government with industry intelligence gained from business, they do not adequately fulfil their advisory function back through to enterprises. Restaurant and Catering Australia attribute this to the fact that ISC pass information back through industry organisations which in turn have to 'deconstruct it for digestion by enterprises in their sector.'[48]

5.48      Mr John Hart, CEO of Restaurant and Catering, added:

I cannot see sufficient engagement of enterprises through industry organisations in any of the instances that I look at of skills councils working with enterprises. I see them working with large enterprises. We have 10 of those, which I think I mentioned in the submission. In the other 40,000-odd enterprises, I cannot see any of that work going on. In fact, it seems to our board that the very language of training packages and the language of the vocational education system disenfranchises many of those small operators. You could never hope to communicate to most of those small businesses in the means and manner in which the skills councils communicate.[49]

5.49      The Primary Industries Skills Council  of South Australia suggested that the problem could be broader in nature:

Most enterprises are small and most are more concerned with surviving in a rapidly changing global marketplace. The issue of engaging them in a new model of workforce skilling will, even with the best intentions of national and State skills advisory bodies, not result in any significant change in behaviour. This is because the national VET system has not adapted sufficiently to a major shift in the marketplace and the manner in which most enterprises will wish to engage and access learning will be different from the old lock step learning models of the 1950’s that still pervade much of our formal learning systems.[50]

5.50      TLISC is an example of a skills council in an industry with a large proportion of small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) which strives to engage with the broader industry:

Through all of the committees and consultation processes that we establish, we always focus on maximising the opportunity for the small-to-medium enterprises to contribute, to have access to the information or have the opportunity to provide input into those processes through a wide range of strategies.[51]

...In our current target we had specific targets around engaging small-to-medium-sized organisations and particularly on our sector committees and our advisory committees.

...We went into our committee structures and ensured that committees had high levels of representation from small-to-medium-sized enterprises, and we have done that through a range of forums that we run throughout Australia, depending whether it is road transport or logistics. We have had a targeted focus around small-to-mediums and we will continue to do that. Those targets have been met and reported in our contract reports back to DEEWR.[52]

5.51      Equally, ForestWorks operates in an environment comprised of approximately 80 per cent small business, but finds that the capacity of smaller businesses to contribute to the skills agenda is 'quite limited'. To address this, ForestWorks advocates a greater responsibility on the part of larger enterprises to train employees on the job and then 'use labour force mobility to ensure that those skills that are developed spill into the other industry sectors, the smaller ones with less capacity to train.'[53]

Committee view

5.52      The committee recognises that engagement with the small business sector presents special challenges, due to its skills base being drawn from the spectrum of ISCs, and the sheer number of small enterprises in operation. It seems that at least some ISCs are making progress in engaging small businesses, even in the face of significant challenges, but the problem will be a perennial one. The committee merely makes the point that the size and importance of the small business sector to the Australian economy dictates that its skills needs continue to be met effectively, and to that end, continued effort to engage the sector in meaningful dialogue is essential.

Recommendation 9

5.53             The committee recommends that ISCs more regularly review their consultation practices and devise practical strategies to address concerns expressed by business, in particular small businesses.

Recommendation 10

5.54             The committee further recommends that DEEWR identify best practice consultation principles and seek ways to incorporate these into its next contract with the ISCs.

Senator Chris Back

Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page