The Australian Industry and Skills Committee – Some Commentary

So as I am sure everyone is aware, last Friday Senator Birmingham (@Birmo) released the make up of the new Australian Industry And Skills Committee which as you may be aware forms part of the new structure for the development of training products within the VET sector, an outline of which can be seen in the graphic below.



There was some criticism raised very quickly by the Shadow Minister for Education Sharon Bird  around there being no voice for students or workers and unions on the new committee.  So lets take a look at the committee, its purpose,  its make up and how it relates to the rest of the new arrangements.

So essentially, and I think this is a really easy way of thinking about how the new structure works, the AISC replaces and takes on that kind of role that was done by the old NSSC.  So it does things like endorse training packages, provide advice and input as to the general direction of VET, assess cases for review of packages and provide advice and input to government.  This is essentially a strategic level group and given the Governments ( in my opinion solid) focus on making sure that the training packages and their content strongly meet the needs of industry (it is as I have said before vocational training after all) I would have expected to see quite a large representation from industry within this committee.  When we look at the make up of the committee, we see at least in my opinion a group of people who have both very strong industry experience as well as very strong VET industry experience, at least in a substantial number of cases.  .

Now a lot has been made by Minister Bird and others about the lack of representation from students, workers and unions and RTOs on the Committe so lets take a look at these criticisms.  What we need to keep in mind though is that most of the hard work around the development of training products and engagement with all of the various stakeholder will be done at the next level down, by the IRCs supported by the SSOs.  So let’s look at the groups who it has been suggested should have had some representation on the committee.  If we start firstly with the RTOs themselves.  To be brutally honest I don’t think RTOs should be on a strategic level committee such as this one.  RTOs be they public or non-public are essential service providers, and generally it would be quite strange to have a ‘vendor’ being involved in and driving strategic level discussion around the the development of the product they are providing.  It would be very easy if RTOs were included at this level for a perception to develop that there may be a conflict of interest.  I also think that if there is a place for RTOs in the development of packages it is at that IRC level where most of the consultation with stakeholders will and should rightly occur.

So what about the workers and unions?  Again I tend to think as with RTOs that the place for the workers and unions is in the IRC space, where they are providing input into what the packages look like, what they contain, and what the delivery requirements are.  In addition isn’t the interaction between workers and the VET system pretty much the same interaction as students with the system.  I might be wrong there but I am not sure of how else ‘workers’ interact with the system.  I am also and I have mentioned this before in relation of a number of the previous ISCs that I was unsure of why there was union representation on the boards of these organisation anyway and to a large extent have never been given a satisfactory answer.  The same goes here, I wonder what is it that a union is going to bring to the table.

That then brings me to the issue of students and whether through some mechanism or other they need to have a voice in a high level strategic committee such as this.  My first question here is how would you include the voice of students at this level, there is no nation union of students for the VET sector (and given the state of the NUS in higher education why would anyone want there to be) or body that represents students in some other form, so finding some way of presenting at unified voice would be difficult.  Also,  students are essentially simply the consumer of Training products (now go and get all offended I know students are more than that really, but in this context that idea of the consumer captures their place quite well I think).  Again as with all of the other groups that have been ‘left out’, it seems to me that the appropriate place for them to have input and be involved in the process is at the level of the IRC groups, where they are far more clearly stakeholders with relevant input.

There is of course another group of people that I was really surprised had not been included in the list of those who should have made up the membership of the committee and that is trainers, assessors, educators, educationalists, whatever the group of people who are involved in the delivery side of the equation, but are not themselves RTOs wants to call themselves (on a side note I have a really interesting discussion about what is group should be called at the recent AITD conference).  Again I would see their place as one of the variety of stakeholders that should be involved at the level of the IRCs, in the actual development of training products and not at the level of strategic direction.

So am I happy with the make of committee?  Yes, at least the people on it have at least in my opinion the skills and backgrounds that they need for the role and there is plenty of space for the other stakeholders in the more hands on development area where the IRCs fit.

Anyway that’s just my opinion.

About pauldrasmussen
Paul Rasmussen is one of Australia’s most widely read Vocational Education and Training Commentators. He provides deep, unbiased analysis and insights not only on topical issues, but also on the underlying structure and policy which supports the industry. His writing and analysis has been praised for its uncompromising and thought provoking style and its ability to focus on the issues of real importance to the sector. He has advised various government departments and ministers, training providers, public and private organisations, not for profits and small to medium enterprises on the VET sector and the issues and opportunities facing it. He is one of Australia’s most awarded learning professionals and a regular speaker at a range of conventions and forums. His extensive experience in vocational education, and learning and development coupled with formal qualifications in philosophy, ethics, business and education management allow Paul to provide a unique view of the road ahead and how to navigate it.

2 Responses to The Australian Industry and Skills Committee – Some Commentary

  1. Slight typo (or perhaps autocorrect) “ASIC” instead of “AISC” – easy mistake considering the similarity.

    So the NSSC is finally back with a different name and different faces. Did anyone think that wasn’t going to happen?

    It looks like the structure is extremely flexible – in fact pretty much completely variable. Not sure that we needed a block diagram to explain that there will be committees called “Service Skills Organisations” which may be formed and adjusted as needed.

    The real questions is will it show more leadership now, or just repeat the pattern of becoming more and more focused on trivial procedural, documentation and nomenclature issues.

    NSSC policy aimed at consistency seemed to produce more variability in TPs each year to the point where exactly the same unit changed code sometimes more than once in a year. Then we had the “take all of the suffixes off” dictate and now they are being put back (e.g. BSB this year).

    If there’s one thing they need to fix urgently is a consistent approach to TP changes and unit coding, with the fundamental rule that, if a change is not significantly functionally different, it doesn’t change it’s code or name – EVER! The ISCs should have to justify to the relevant SSO why a new version of a unit of qualification is different enough that a student training in the old one is likely not to be competent in the new version.

    • pauldrasmussen says:


      Thanks for noticing I missed that. When the new model came out I was surprised how many people didn’t ‘get it’ I thought it fairly simple, given that most of the actual IRC structures are quite flexible and target driven. I certainly agree about leadership over trivial procedural issues, the constant changes to codes and letters is just beyond belief. Unless there is a significant change there isn’t any reason to alter the coding. I also think that built into the system is the face that the IRCs have to put up a business cases for changed to units, which should hopefully stop all of that nonsense.

Let me Know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: