• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (AMENDMENT) BILL 2168 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 25 May 1994 be better able to assist ANTA. That fact was not The six members will be expert contributors. The covered as an anomaly or enumerated by the board will work not as a parliament of interests, and honourable member. Where was his disagreement that change must be welcomed. with the ANTA board, which is parallel in functions with the State Training Board? How can issues and Let us look at what the board is to do because that is structure be addressed unless a parallel exists particularly important. First, its advisory and between the boards? research function will be strengthened. This should be the real focus of the State Training Board. The honourable member for Carrurn mentioned the Secondly, under the board's management function, review commissioned last year by the minister into which was ignored completely by the honourable the State Training Board, but he fudged the issue. I member for Carrum, the roles of the minister and shall refer to the report with which he took issue. the board have to be clarified - that is being The recommendations of the report are carried done - and the State Training Board has to become through by the bill. In its recommendations about Victoria's agency under the ANTA arrangement so the government's approach to the State Training that it can provide to ANTA policy advice and Board and the movement away from a information on training needs, develop our state representational board and its reconstitution along training profiles and monitor the state training lines similar to the ANTA board the report sta tes: system to ensure that it fits into the national strategic plan and the state training profile. All of that will be The composition and membership of the STB sought done by the bill, yet it was ignored by the diversity of knowledge and experience on the board. honourable member for Carrum. The regulatory However, this has handicapped its decision-making functions were briefly mentioned, yet the processes. From time to time board members have seen accreditation, apprenticeship administration and their representative role as primary, giving rise to tribunal functions were ignored. difficulties with decisions affecting certain interest groups. The size of STB has also militated against I would like to speak for a longer time on ANTA expeditious and effective decision making. A number itself because members on both sides of the house of those interviewed by the project team saw particular should come together to agree on how important it strengths in the composition of the newly created is to put the legislation in place for the training of five-person ANT A board. A board with such a young people given their importance in the future of membership was seen to be reflective of contemporary the economy and the prosperity of the state and developments in executive management arrangements nation, as was mentioned by the honourable in more progressive private and public sector member for Carrum. Yet he dealt with none of that. organisations. What about the agreed objEctives and priorities of The State Training Board has been reconstituted to the ANTA agreement, the assured funding reflect those recommendations, yet the honourable arrangements, the consistent national strategies or member for Carrum did not mention that fact. the network of public and private providers that is agreed on at the state and federal levels? That What should be the role of the board? Is it to be a should be a matter of celebration between us rather stakeholder? Of course it is not! Should it argue for than a deba te on some spurious amendment sectional and partisan requirements? Of course not! beholden to a constituency of unions, brought in Should its members be representatives of interest here by the honourable member for Carrum. groups? Of course not! Therefore, what should happen? The focus of our discussions should have been ANTA as a national focus and how it will work with The honourable member for Carrum misused the the state. I am disappointed that the amendment word 'stakeholders'. The government will consider was moved because it has meant that did not the key stakeholders in the state training system happen. because STB members will have Significant industry experience. They will have employer and employee State legislation must be brought forward to support backgrounds, as the minister said in his the commonwealth legislation. The state has a second-reading speech, but the honourable member pecuniary interest given the growth funding for Carrum ignored that. It would not hurt if the provided by the commonwealth, which I members had knowledge of college operations and understand will provide Victoria with $179 million college government - that could be provided for. in addition to our training budget. That funding VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (AMENDMENT) BILL Wednesday, 25 May 1994 ASSEMBLY 2169 would be put at risk if, for instance, we were to do I turn to the national framework for recognition of what the honourable member for Carrum suggests training and the national qualifications framework. I and withdraw the bill. What of that growth he wants have two post-secondary educational providers in for the economy and for our young people? What my electorate, the excellent Holmesglen College of about the $179 million we would forgo if we were to TAFE and a campus of Deakin UniverSity. Those withdraw the bill? two bodies have some difficulties with the current situation. I have had talks with the staff and I have often heard the honourable members for interested people from both institutions. In light of Springvale, Morwell and Carrum talk about those talks it is interesting to think about the things training, and there are many things on which we that we should be and need to be addressing; agree: interaction between industry and training establishing competency-based qualifications, the providers, an effective training market and an point the honourable member for Carrurn was efficient network of publicly funded providers. We making earlier when he talked about the importance all agree that we need better cross-sectional links. of TAFE; the development of competency standards; They are the things we should have been talking not placing undue emphasis on course duration or about tonight, not this spurious amendment. Yet entry conditions but putting the emphasis on none of these was mentioned. competencies; the confusion about the word 'certificate' and what it might mean; confusion about I agree with the honourable member about the the terms 'advanced diploma' and 'associate culture of training that we need in Australia, which diploma', which are used differently overseas; the we have not yet developed. We need life-long inappropriateness of the diploma award for training. At the moment apprenticeships and educational practice when overseas it is considered traineeships are giving way to arrangements either a technical or para-professional level of involving host employers taking on young people training; the misalignment of current credentials in who are doing courses. That trend was picked up in the system; the arrangements for holders of existing the Carmichael report and more recently in the qualifications; the arrangements for students federal government's white paper. Expertise should currently completing accredited courses; and be recognised wherever individuals gain it. That is a cross-sectional articulation principles. Those are the more flexible training situation that we would all training and qualification problems which face us as agree on. Why are we not agreeing on that and a nation and which I hope the state training agency furthering those things for young people in this and ANTA can work on. country? Those things were not mentioned by the honourable member for Carrum. Where was the discussion of those things and the offer of working together to solve them in the The state training agency that will be constituted by interests of our young people? It did not happen. the bill will be responsible for training within Where was the discussion of guidelines and Victoria consistent with the national strategy plan. protocols for issuing qualifications or mechanisms That training agency has to be responsible to this for evaluating the framework? Where was that Parliament and to the minister. It has to be discussion in which we could have worked together accountable to the minister for its operational on this important initiative? Those things were not responsibilities. That is why I could not understand mentioned in the response of the honourable the point made by the honourable member for member for Carrum. Carrum about some sort of mythical ministerial dictatorial control. That is an appropriate check and I was disappointed with that because the specifics of balance in the same way that the state training the bill mean that it will enable Victoria to conform agency would be responsible to the ministerial with national standards; will bring the Victorian council on matters of national policy. accreditation system into line with national standards; do simple things like making the There is a need for complementary state and federal terminology consistent in the state and federal acts; legislation to define the role of the state training give the State Training Board the ability to agency and its role with ANTA. The proposed determine ma tters such as a competency standards amendment puts that at risk. I hope the honourable by adopting national, interstate or industry member for Carrum understands the seriousness of standards; and review the legislation to enable that. compliance with the qualification framework and recognition of the training framework. None of those VOCA TIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (AMENDMENT) BILL 2170 ASSEMBLY Wednesday, 25 May 1994 things was mentioned by the honourable member system throughout Australia.

Load more

  158

Copy Link