manufacturing skills australia’s response to the report ... · 58. msa's response to the...

Manufacturing Skills Australia‘s

response to the report –

A shared responsibility –

Apprenticeships for the 21st

Century

Manufacturing Skills Australia

April 2011

58. MSA's response to the report A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century (5).docx of 18

This report has been prepared by Manufacturing Skills Australia in response to ―A shared responsibility –

Apprenticeships for the 21st Century – Final Report of the Expert Panel 31 January 2011‖.

Manufacturing Skills Australia (MSA) is the national industry skills council recognised by the Australian

Government to ensure that the skill needs of manufacturing enterprises are being met. It is responsible for

workforce development initiatives which include providing industry intelligence and advice to inform

government policy, supporting the development, implementation and improvement of nationally recognised

training and qualifications, and providing skills and training advice to individual enterprises to assist with

training and development processes.

Our vision is to be the pre-eminent organisation in Australia fostering and advocating for the workforce

skill development needs of a thriving industry. We provide bi-partisan leadership and value the empowered

and informed input of industry stakeholders. We strive to provide high quality information and workforce

development resources to support the participation of industry in developing an innovative, highly

productive and globally competitive manufacturing industry.

MSA is funded by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and

works closely with Skills Australia, industry associations, unions, training providers, government agencies

and employers to continually evolve and improve skills for manufacturing.

Contact for this report:

Bob Paton

Chief Executive Officer

[email protected]

© April 2011

Manufacturing Skills Australia

PO Box 289,

NORTH SYDNEY NSW 2059 AUSTRALIA

ph +61 2 9955 5500 www.mskills.com.au

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mskills.com.au/


Manufacturing Skills Australia’s response to ‘A shared responsibility –

Apprenticeships for the 21st Century’

1. Executive summary

Manufacturing Skills Australia (MSA) is pleased to respond to ‗A shared responsibility – Apprenticeships

for the 21st Century‘.

MSA commends the Expert Panel on their consideration of the complexities and challenges of Australia‘s

apprenticeship systems. As the report highlights, the issues faced in moving to a new paradigm for

apprenticeships are challenged by the many factors that impinge on successful completion of

apprenticeships (pg 8). These range from effective careers advice, to recruitment, then employment

practices and arrangements as well as the adequacy of RTOs in delivering outcomes specified in Training

Package qualifications.

In its response to the report, MSA has addressed a number of key areas. These key areas and MSA‘s

responses are summarised below.

MSA agrees in principle with the majority of recommendations in the Final Report of the Expert Panel.

MSA is not in a position to comment on recommendations 6 and 14.

After careful consideration of the report, MSA has identified three major issues that need to be addressed as

part of the restructure of the Australian Apprenticeship system:

The need to decouple apprenticeships and traineeships;

The need for a national approach to the identification of trade occupations and qualifications;

The need to re-brand and promote apprenticeships and trade occupations.

The Training Packages under MSA‘s scope covered 35% of all traditional trade completions and 23% of

completions for other trades and technicians in 20091.

The need to decouple apprenticeships and traineeships

If Australia is to have the skills base that is required for a productive and innovative economy, the

proportion of apprentices and trainees entering into contracts of training must increase. Currently

apprenticeships and traineeships are considered the ‗poor relations‘ of post-school career choices,

especially in the post-school education sector. The image of apprenticeships and traineeships as pathways

to careers of choice needs to improve. Career advisors and teachers also need to be educated to see skills

and knowledge gained through a vocational pathway such as an apprenticeship or traineeship as being of

value.

The decoupling of apprenticeships and traineeships and clarification of the differences in skills

requirements for each should be the first step. Currently there is a large amount of confusion surrounding

the two career pathways and apprenticeships and traineeships are often seen as one and the same thing.

The focus should not be on the qualification, in particular the level of the qualification. Rather the focus

should be on the achievement of a trade which is valued by industry and the community, and is recognised

as the commencement of a life-long career.

1 NCVER VOCSTATS accessed March 2011 (Appendix C)


The term ―Traditional Trade‖ should be changed to ―National Trade‖ or similar to better reflect the role

trades play in Australian society. ―National Trades‖ should identify those trade occupations that are

relevant and critical to Australia‘s economic well-being. The identification of ―National Trades‖ needs to

be agreed by industry.

The need for a national approach to the identification of trade qualifications

The current situation whereby each state identifies what is recognised as a trade occupation (and relevant

qualification) in that state has lead to the situation whereby there appears to be a lack of transferability of

skills. Under the National Training System, nationally accredited qualifications provide nationally

recognised skills. These qualifications underpin the Australian Apprenticeship system. However when a

qualification is recognised as a trade qualification in one state and that same qualification is not recognised

as the same in an adjoining state, confusion reigns and ―transferability of skills‖ may apparently be lost.

Similarly, when a ‗trade‘ is declared in one jurisdiction and not others then employers and

apprentices/tradespersons can also become confused.

The establishment of a national body that has responsibility for the identification of National Trades is

necessary to provide a declaration and recognition system for trades that is truly national in scope. This

body may indeed be the National Custodian as suggested in the report and a variety of mechanisms may be

used to identify National Trades. Whatever process is used, industry must be involved in the consultation

process, as must skills standards setting bodies such as the Industry Skills Councils (ISCs).

The need to re-brand and promote apprenticeships and trade occupations

MSA strongly supports the need to raise the status of apprenticeships and trade occupations if we are to

achieve a productive Australia for the future. As the first step to raising the status of apprenticeships, they

need to be decoupled from traineeships. Apprenticeships and traineeships need to be clearly defined and the

different outcomes for each clarified. One criterion for the identification of ‗National Trades‘ should be the

application of the Skills Australia view on ‗specialised occupations‘ i.e. those occupations that have at least

two of the following three characteristics:

long lead time—skills are highly specialised and require extended learning and preparation time

over several years

high use—skills are deployed for the uses intended (i.e. good occupational ‗fit‘)

high risk—the disruption caused by the skills being in short supply is great, resulting either in

bottlenecks in supply chains or imposing significant economic or community costs because an

organisation cannot operate.

This is also in recognition of the fact that ―while an apprenticeship and traineeship at Certificate III level

may have the same academic requirements, the skills requirements for an apprenticeship are very different

to those of a traineeship at that level.‖2

2Skills Australia 2010 Australian Workforce Futures: A National Workforce Development Strategy Commonwealth of Australia pg 21


Summary of response to recommendations

No Recommendation MSA response

1 Establish a National Custodian Support

2 Clarify stakeholder roles Support

3 Prequalification and training for employers –

Excellence in Employment scheme

Support

4 Structured support for employers Support

5 Redirection of Australian Government employer incentives Qualified support

6 Establish an Employer Contribution Scheme No comment

7 Support during economic downturns Qualified support

8 Regulate quality of VET in Schools Support

9 National consistency in preparatory training Support

10 Support for disadvantaged groups Support

11 Strategy to raise status of apprenticeships and traineeships Support

12 Promote competency based progression Support

13 Improve implementation of RPL and RCC Support

14 Support Fair Work Australia review of conditions No comment


2. Comment on Recommendations

1. Establish a National Custodian to oversee reform that will ensure Australia has a high quality

Australian Apprenticeships system that:

responds to the needs of the economy

supports nationally consistent standards for employment and training of apprentices and

trainees

focuses on retention and completion of apprentices and trainees

supports high quality skill development to ensure all apprentices and trainees have well

rounded and highly respected skills required by the economy.

As a first step an independent taskforce should be established to work with the eight jurisdictions

to align their systems and develop a framework and process for the establishment of the National

Custodian. The taskforce would be led by an independent chair and have a representative from

each state and territory government, a union and an employer group.

MSA supports the establishment of an independent national body (such as the National Custodian) to

oversee the reform of the Australian Apprenticeship system. This body must have as part of its membership

representation from industry and from a skills setting body such as ISCs3. It is imperative that industry be

involved in any reform of the Australian Apprenticeship system as they are the users of the system. The

focus of the reform process should be on the needs of industry and industry should be involved in the

identification of these needs. This also recognises that industry drives the economy. It is also important that

a skills standard setting body such as the ISCs is involved in the review (rather than training providers) to

ensure that AQTF standards are being met.

The body should also have the responsibility to list vocational training orders (VTOs) or similar once they

have been agreed by the industrial parties. This power should be made explicit in the role of the national

body. Currently, devices such as VTOs are identified and declared at state level. This leads to inconsistency

and confusion about trades recognition across jurisdictions4.

The expert panel, in its report, raises the issue of ―transferability of skills‖ (pg 30) and states that ―there is

no body empowered to harmonise the differences in qualifications across state borders‖ (pg 41).

MSA contends that the AQF, in conjunction with the powers under the AQTF does provide a system of

national qualifications. The purpose of the AQF which encompasses all nationally accredited qualifications

including those undertaken through Australian Apprenticeships is to provide workers with the recognition

through qualifications of the skills required to work in their chosen industry in any jurisdiction in Australia.

The establishment of a national trades identification body to ensure consistency across jurisdictions rather

than state bodies having the responsibility would support the recognition of national trades and

qualifications5.

MSA has concerns that in defining the role of the National Custodian, the expert panel may have brought it

into conflict with existing bodies which currently have responsibility. The areas of conflict are:

measuring and assessing the quality of skills training within the Australian apprenticeships system.

MSA contends that the measurement and assessment of the quality of skills training within the Australian

apprenticeships system is part of the role of the National VET Regulator (NVR) and quality standards are

stipulated under the AQTF.

3 Commonwealth of Australia, 2011 A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century pg 43 4 Commonwealth of Australia, 2011 A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century pg 41 5 Commonwealth of Australia, 2011 A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century pg 41


reviewing the current skills requirements for apprentices and trainees and making

recommendations for up-skilling qualifications as occupations evolve, in partnership with the

National Quality Council.

MSA contends that the determination and reviewing of the current skills requirements of apprentices and

trainees is implicit in the role of ISCs in working with industry to identify both current and future skills

needs, and to develop and update Training Package qualifications to meet these needs. Part of the

consultation process is identifying and updating the underpinning national qualifications used in the

Australian Apprenticeship system. Once identified and updated, Training Packages and the qualifications

contained within them are endorsed by the National Quality Council6

MSA believes that any reference to the National Custodian undertaking these roles be removed.

2. Enhance the quality and effectiveness of the Australian Apprenticeships system by clarifying the

roles and consolidating the number of stakeholders in the system, ensuring that services are

provided by the most appropriate provider, duplication of service delivery is reduced and

administrative processes are streamlined. The National Custodian would ultimately be tasked

with this role and will require Australian and state and territory governments – in consultation

with industry, unions and other key stakeholders – to work together. In the interim the

independent taskforce would progress this work.

MSA supports a simplification of the current system. However before undertaking work in this area, it is

important that roles of all current stakeholders are clear. In its review of the current system, the expert

panel has allocated certain functions that ISCs undertake to intermediary organisations. ISCs undertake

both a standards setting/regulatory role and also a consultative and research role.

It should be noted that in Appendix O (pg 124) the following functions are also part of the role of ISCs:

Standard setting/regulatory functions -

Registration and certification of training packages and qualifications

Provide industry intelligence and advice to government and enterprises on workforce development

and skills needs

Consultative/research functions -

Undertake annual environmental scans to identify existing and emerging industry skill shortages

Consult with and advocate for industry and their training needs

In relation to duplication of service delivery, MSA supports a simplification of the system. One area of

concern is the issuing of ―qualifications‖ by registered training organisations (RTOs) when State Training

Authorities (STAs) are responsible for the issuing of ―certificates of achieved competency‖ (pg 18). There

remain instances where the employer does not provide verification of attainment of on-the-job competency.

Under the AQTF and NVR, only RTOs are able to assess and certify competency. It is important that any

assessment of competency on-the-job incorporates the employer‘s input and feedback.

There needs to be a single issuing authority and once an apprentice has been assessed competent in all

areas, the contract of training is deemed completed i.e. MSA supports competency based completion.

MSA also supports the reintroduction of the issuance of ‗trade papers‘ by the national trades regulator.

6 NQC Secretariat http://www.nqc.tvetaustralia.com.au/ accessed April 2011

http://www.nqc.tvetaustralia.com.au/


3. Establish a formal accreditation process for the pre-qualification and training of all employers

of apprentices and trainees to ensure a nationally consistent minimum standard of high quality

employment and training is provided. In addition establish an Excellence in Employment

Scheme to recognise and reward those employers who have consistently demonstrated their

commitment to excellence in training apprentices and trainees.

MSA is supportive of the thrust of this recommendation. However, establishing a formal accreditation

process for the pre-qualification and training of employers of apprentices and trainees may be quite

problematic, particularly for small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) and micro-businesses. There is a

need to establish both ‗how‘ and ‗who‘ would be responsible for these arrangements. Any accreditation

process needs to have industry involvement in establishing the standards by which accreditation may

proceed and any such scheme should not be viewed as a mandatory requirement but as a positive activity

that employers could undertake.

MSA believes that one benchmark for recognition as a quality employer of Australian Apprentices7 should

be set through successful outcomes, i.e. the percentage of apprentices and/or trainees within an enterprise

that successfully complete their training.

In examining completion rates for Australian Apprentices (pg 48), MSA believes that the completion rates

quoted do not reflect what is happening on the ground. There are several issues around the current system

for calculating completion rates:

The statistics fail to take into account what happens when an Australian Apprentice leaves one

employer to commence employment with another employer

The statistics fail to take into account what happens when companies merge/demerge

It is difficult to ascertain if the estimations produced by NCVER account for the early completion

of Australian Apprenticeships

Appendix G (attached) is an estimation of occupational cohort completion rates for two traditional

apprenticeships – Mechanical engineering tradesperson and Fabrication engineering tradesperson. The first

table estimates completion rates for the 2005 cohort if they completed a full 4 year apprenticeship. The

second table estimates completions rates for the same cohort based on the average actual duration of 37

months8.

MSA strongly endorses the introduction of a unique student identifier (USI) that will assist in accurately

monitoring training statistics, enabling a much clearer picture of training outcomes to be viewed.

It is essential that engineering, ICT and science Australian Apprentices should be clearly delineated. The

category of engineering Australian Apprentice is a category of apprentices who are traditional trade

apprentices. ICT and science Australian Apprentices are non-traditional apprentices/trainees. To combine

all three into one category produces a false picture of what is happening in these sectors.

7 Commonwealth of Australia, 2011 A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century pg 51 8 Commonwealth of Australia, 2011 A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century, Appendix N pg 121


4. Establish structured support for employers to provide high quality employment and workforce

development experiences for eligible apprentices and trainees. The focus of Australian

Government support should be on assisting employers to provide high quality on-the-job and off-

the-job training through support services such as mentoring and pastoral care.

Anecdotal evidence gathered by MSA for its 2010 Environmental Scan supports the need for the

introduction of structured support for employers of apprentices and trainees. This was again the situation in

20119. MSA believes that ISCs are well positioned to identify how structured support can be provided and

also have a place in providing that support.

Furthermore MSA believes that the role of group training organisations (GTOs) in supporting employers

should be recognised and clarified, and even expanded to encompass a stronger pastoral role, not just an

employment role. The performance of GTOs also need to be included in any Employer of Excellence

scheme .With this inclusion, the scheme should also involve host employers where they draw apprentices

from a GTO.

A further consideration could be the development of a scheme similar to the Engaging Employers strategy

contained in the Investors in People – UK (United Kingdom) Commission for Employment and Skills

program10

.

The introduction of the NVR later this year is a major step forward in ensuring the ongoing quality of the

vocational education and training (VET) system, including the delivery of high quality on-the-job and off-

the-job training.

MSA contends that the generic profile of apprentices and trainees provided (Appendix F, pg 112) does not

make explicit what is happening in the trades and technical areas, especially in occupations covered by

MSA. Appendices A and F (attached) provides a profile of Australian Apprenticeships in manufacturing

from 2003 to 2009. As can be seen, the profiles in both traditional trade occupations and in non-trade

occupations has changed significantly with mature age Australian Apprenticeships increasing in both areas.

This data supports the premise that the Australian Apprenticeship system already supports mature age and

existing worker uptake of contracts of training. MSA believes the issue in relation to existing worker

uptake may lie more within the Industrial Relations system and is not related to the training system11

.

MSA is concerned that the review recommends that machinery operators and drivers not be eligible for

support from the Australia government. Up-skilling of process workers is one of the key drivers of MSA‘s

workforce development policy; for driving improvement and gains in productivity. The number of

manufacturing workers without post-school qualifications is higher than the industry average (45.7% of

manufacturing workers do not have a post-school qualification compared with the across all industries

average of 39.3% of workers. 63.7% of machinery operators and drivers do not have a post-school

qualification. 12

) For manufacturing to be sustainable in Australia, and as the third largest driver of the

economy, it is imperative that traineeships for process workers continue to be funded. Such up-skilling is

also necessary to offset the loss of skilled workers to the resources sector. Manufacturing, through the

training of engineering tradespersons, is the major supplier of skilled workers to the resources sector.

9 Manufacturing Skills Australia 2011 Environmental Scan 10 http://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/About/PolicyDevelopment/Pages/Engagingemployees.aspx accessed April 2011 11 Commonwealth of Australia, 2011 A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century pg 32 12 Australian Bureau of Statistics Education and Work, May 2010 Table 11

http://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/About/PolicyDevelopment/Pages/Engagingemployees.aspx

58. MSA's response to the report A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century (5).docx of

18

5. Redirect current Australian Government employer incentives to provide structured support

services to eligible apprentices and trainees and their employers in occupations that are priorities

for the Australian economy. While a wide range of occupations should be trained through

apprenticeship and traineeship pathways, Australian Government support should focus on

occupations that have tangible and enduring value for the economy – both in the traditional

trades and the newer forms of apprenticeships and traineeships, such as community services,

health services and information technology.

MSA agrees that the current one-size-fits-all mechanisms for incentives are not agile or flexible (pg 58).

Decoupling apprenticeships from traineeships will assist in establishing the different skills requirements of

apprenticeships and traineeships. While an apprenticeship and a traineeship at certificate III level may have

the same academic requirements, the skills requirements for an apprenticeship are very different to those of

a traineeship at that level13

. This would enable incentives to be targeted more effectively.

When identifying eligible apprentices and trainees, the process needs to not only consider those areas

experiencing skills shortages. MSA agrees that support for eligible apprenticeships and traineeships ―will

be most effective if governments and industry can work collaboratively‖ (pg 58).

There also needs to be consideration of the impact of any reduction in availability of incentives for

occupations where there is a predominantly female workforce. The impact could well have a serious

detrimental effect on participation rates of women in the workforce as well as any up-skilling activities for

those workers.

7. Facilitate a cooperative and flexible approach by governments and industry bodies to allow for

the continuation of both training and employment of apprentices and trainees during periods of

economic downturn. Early intervention should be a key element of this approach. Support for a

range of measures to be in place until economic recovery occurs could include:

reduction of work hours offset by additional training

increased off-the-job training

placement with other employers within the industry

increased mentoring and support.

MSA supports the recommendation on the proviso that any response must be industry driven. Without the

support of industry and recognition of that support, any interventions during an economic downturn are

likely to fail.

With regard to the recommendation of ‗increased off-the-job training‘, there needs to be a set of clear

standards for simulated workplaces and such simulated workplaces need to be well supported. ISCs must

be involved in the development of such standards in conjunction with the NVR and the accreditation of

such simulations. In circumstances where a simulated workplace of a satisfactory standard is not available,

MSA would expect that deeming of full competency could not be made by an RTO. In general, a simulated

workplace is one where the range of experience spans the equivalent of a productive work environment,

and that the scope, conditions and variability of work is similar to a real workplace. MSA believes that few

current ‗simulated workplaces‘ meet these criteria.

13 Commonwealth of Australia 2011 A shared responsibility – Apprenticeships for the 21st Century pg 35 - 36


18

8. Formally regulate the quality of VET in Schools within the VET system to enhance the

consistency and quality of training across all jurisdictions and to recognise the potential of VET

in Schools as a pathway into an apprenticeship or traineeship.

MSA supports the formal regulation of the quality of VET in schools for both of the reasons outlined in the

recommendation. There also needs to be clearly articulated the difference between VET in schools

programs and Australian School-based Apprenticeships (ASbAs). VET in schools is a state-based program

that may not lead to a qualification or even use the components of the National Training Framework. In

many cases students use VET in schools to obtain direct entry into further education rather than using it as

a vocational pathway. Students do not always complete the qualification as they only undertake one or two

units of competency and there may be little to no work placement component (confirmed through

discussion with NCVER).

ASbAs are regulated through the Australian Apprenticeships system. There is a requirement for the student

to be in part-time employment. Again issues arise from differences in state requirements re hours of

employment, which qualifications are recognised for ASbAs and whether there is continuing employment

as an apprentice/trainee after graduating from school.

As part of the regulation process for VET in schools programs, there needs to be standards developed that

ensure the on-the-job components of qualifications can be adequately met. As most VET in schools

programs are delivered under auspicing arrangements between the school and the RTO, the organisations

involved need to be able to provide clear evidence of how such components will be delivered. MSA has

anecdotal evidence of students under VET in schools programs being deemed ‗competent‘ where there has

been no structured workplace experience sufficient for the student to gain the necessary practice and

application to become competent. These instances seem to have fallen ‗under the radar‘ of any regulatory

processes for RTOs.

MSA recommends that the National Custodian have the responsibility for identifying and authorising the

delivery of VET in schools programs so that the link between these programs and national vocational

career pathways is made explicit.

9. Increase national consistency in preparatory training by directing the National Quality Council

to develop definitions for pre-apprenticeship and pre-vocational training.

MSA supports the recommendation. However the recommendation does not go far enough in that there also

needs to be clear delineation between ‗pre-vocational‘ and ‗pre-employment‘ training. Currently these

terms are used interchangeably when they should represent training for entirely different reasons. MSA

requests that there be clear definitions for ‗pre-apprenticeship‘, ‗pre-vocational‘ and ‘pre-employment‘

programs and that the term ‗pre-vocational‘ not be used interchangeably with ‗pre-employment‘.

‗Pre-apprenticeship‘ programs should be defined as ―nationally recognised programs delivered by an

accredited training organisation that include units of competency relating to the skills required for an

apprenticeship‖.

‗Pre-vocational‘ programs should be defined as ―nationally recognised programs delivered by an accredited

training organisation that include units of competency leading to a vocational outcome‖.

Reference to ‗pre-employment programs‘ needs to be added to the recommendation and ‗pre-employment‘

programs should be differentiated from ‗pre-vocational‘ programs and defined as ―programs that are

designed to lead to an employment outcome for the participant‖. MSA views pre-employment programs as

labour market programs.


18

MSA agrees with the panel‘s statement regarding the strengthening of pre-apprenticeship programs (pg 76)

– ―...this industry led process represents the best vehicle for the establishment of nationally consistent pre-

apprenticeship programs.‖

10. Provide additional support for apprentices and trainees who face specific challenges, such as:

Indigenous Australians

disability

located in regional or remote Australia

having poor language, literacy and numeracy skills.

Australian Government support will be provided to these apprentices, trainees and their

employers to assist in overcoming barriers to participation and completion of their

apprenticeship or traineeship. Support will be through the provision of tailored structured

support services and the continuation of some current Australian Government employer

incentives.

In the recommendation there is no mention of the support needed to assist workers entering Australian

Apprenticeships in which there are gender imbalances (pg 35), such as women entering metal and

engineering Australian Apprenticeships (Appendix D attached). MSA would like to see any response to

this recommendation highlight this area.

Furthermore, MSA requests that additional support be provided for women undertaking Australian

Apprenticeships, whether through an apprenticeship or a traineeship. Women are underrepresented in the

uptake of Australian Apprenticeships, especially in the occupational groups of technicians and trades

workers and machinery operators and drivers (Appendix I pg 115). These two occupational areas cover the

majority of workers in manufacturing.

In the report ―No More Excuses‖, ISCs identify poor language, literacy and numeracy (LLN) skills as one

of, if not the major challenge facing industry and educators in Australia today. The lack of these skills is

seriously impacting many Australian Apprentices‘ ability to complete their training.14

11. Implement a strategy to raise the status of apprenticeships and traineeships including promotion

as a valued career choice for both males and females. This should be led by the Australian

Government, in consultation with state and territory governments, industry bodies and unions.

The National Custodian, when established will lead the ongoing effort to raise the status of

apprentices and trainees.

MSA strongly supports the recommendation and sees a great need to raise the status of apprenticeships and

traineeships if we are to achieve a productive Australia for the future. As the first step to raising the status

of apprenticeships and traineeships, apprenticeships and traineeships need to be decoupled.

Apprenticeships and traineeships need to be clearly defined and the different outcomes for each clarified.

Decoupling apprenticeships from traineeships will assist in establishing the different skills requirements of

apprenticeships and traineeships. While an apprenticeship and traineeship at certificate III level may have

the same academic requirements, the skills requirements for an apprenticeship are very different to those of

a traineeship at that level.

Furthermore, MSA recommends that apprenticeships be re-branded and that the term ―traditional

apprenticeship‖ be changed to ―national apprenticeship‖. This will clearly define that these careers are

―national‖ in scope and remove the perception that apprenticeships are ―physically demanding, unsafe,

14 Industry Skills Councils 2011 No More Excuses – An industry response to the language, literacy and numeracy challenge


18

dirty and are considered poorly paid‖ (pg 85). In the process, it needs to be made clear that a ―national

apprenticeship‖ has a very different outcome that is not solely based on the duration of the training.

To support raising the status of apprenticeships and traineeships, career advisors and teachers need to be

supported to understand the value of apprenticeships and traineeships to the Australian economy and as a

career pathway for all students (not just those considered as to not have the academic skills to progress to

higher education). MSA proposes that this could be undertaken through an ISC network of support for

career advisors and teachers.

12. Promote a culture of competency based progression in apprenticeships and traineeships, in

partnership with industry bodies and employers. Additionally, a greater acceptance and

achievement of competency-based wage and training progression should be supported by all

stakeholders.

MSA supports competency based progression in apprenticeships and traineeships, especially in partnership

with industry bodies and employers. The VET system is built on the ideal of competency based

progression, therefore an Australian Apprenticeship system based on the achievement of competency

should reflect this ideal.

MSA does not wish to provide comment on matters relating to wages and/or awards.

13. Improve the implementation of Recognition of Prior Learning and Recognition of Current

Competence and support provisions for such recognition in modern awards to ensure that

flexibility and mobility are supported.

MSA supports the recommendation to improve the implementation of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL)

and Recognition of Current Competence (RCC) within the Australian Apprenticeship system. RPL and

RCC are both integral components of a competency based VET system. Through processes such as RPL

and RCC, existing workers within the manufacturing sector can be supported to obtain recognition of skills

and competency that they have gained through on-the-job, informal and non-formal learning, increasing the

skill base in industry sectors (such textiles, clothing and footwear) which currently have a low formal skills

base.

Although it is not within MSA‘s scope to comment on matters relating to wages and/or awards, MSA

considers that a better acceptance of the outcome of any positive RPL/RCC activity as recognition

equivalent to a more formal training outcome would greatly assist in a more widespread adoption of valid,

reliable and fair recognition of competency already held.

3. Statistics

MSA is concerned that some of the data presented in the Appendices is flawed. In particular MSA

questions the data in Appendices F and M. The data in Appendix F (pg 112) purports to show ―in training‖

statistics as a percentage of apprentices and trainees for the year. However according to NCVER (see

Appendix B attached) in-training figures are a ‗point-in-time‘ figure and are not cumulative figures.

Appendix M (pg 120) provides data from 1995 on under two headings – ―Trade occupations‖ and ―Non-

trade occupations‖. NCVER did not begin to classify commencements into these categories until July 2000.

Prior to that date, only one set of data was provided15

. Appendices E and F (attached) show data relating to

Australian Apprenticeships commencements for manufacturing under the two headings from 2002-03 when

NCVER began classifying data by industry.

-END-

15 National Centre for Vocational Education Research VOCSTATS database accessed April 2011

58. MSA's response to the report A shared responsibility - Apprenticeships for the 21st Century (5).docx

of 18

Appendix A

Age profile of Australian Apprentices in training (manufacturing) 2000 – 2010 by MSA Training Packages

Age

groups

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

14 or

below

0 0 0 0.95% 2.2% 0.6% 2.7% 1.9% 3.3% 1.9% 4.3%

Age 15 0 0 0 2.6% 3.2% 3.98% 4.4% 4.7% 4.0% 3.3% 2.9%

Age 16 0 0 0 3.98% 5.1% 5.9% 6.1% 6.3% 6.0% 5.6% 4.6%

Age 17 0 0 0 5.6% 5.8% 6.6% 7.2% 7.2% 7.6% 6.4% 6.3%

Age 18 0 0 0 5.8% 3.1% 6.5% 6.96% 6.9% 6.9% 6.6% 6.2%

Age 19 0 0 0 6.0% 3.5% 6.7% 6.8% 6.8% 6.9% 6.4% 6.2%

20 – 24

years

0 0 0 5.3% 6.1% 6.9% 7.1% 6.97% 6.6% 5.98% 5.3%

25 – 34

years

0 0 0 4.5% 5.9% 8.2% 8.8% 8.2% 7.8% 6.9% 6.1%

35 years

and over

0 0 0 4.1% 5.4% 8.96% 9.7% 9.1% 9.2% 7.8% 7.5%

Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research VOCSTATS accessed March 2011

Age profile of traditional trade apprentices in training (manufacturing) 2000 – 2010 by MSA Training Packages

Age

groups 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

14 or

below 0 0 0 2.1% 4.0% 2.2% 6.4% 4.3% 6.6% 5.2% 8%

Age 15 0 0 0 6.98% 9.4% 11.9% 12.1% 12.4% 12.8% 11.0% 9.6%

Age 16 0 0 0 14.4% 16.6% 18.96% 19.1% 19.98% 20.1% 18.6% 16.6%

Age 17 0 0 0 19.3% 21.0% 23.4% 24.8% 24.5% 24.4% 23.9% 22.6%

Age 18 0 0 0 22.2% 22.6% 24.4% 25.3% 25.8% 25.2% 25.1% 24.2%

Age 19 0 0 0 21.6% 23.0% 24.8% 25.5% 25.5% 25.6% 24.9% 24.2%

20 – 24

years

0 0 0 16.8% 19.1% 21.0% 22.2% 22.8% 22.3% 21.2% 19.8%

25 – 34

years

0 0 0 5.5% 6.5% 8.5% 9.9% 10.5% 11.5% 11.0% 10.2%

35 years

and over

0 0 0 1.9% 2.2% 3.0% 3.2% 3.5% 4.0% 3.8% 3.3%

Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research VOCSTATS accessed March 2011


of 18


18

Appendix B

Extract from communications with NCVER 15 September 2010

In-training figures are a ‗point-in-time‘ figure, so we say 437 000 apprentices and trainees were in-training as

at 31 March 2010.

It‘s not a cumulative figure like commencements, where we would say there were 284 000 commencements in

the 12 months ending 31 March 2010.

In-training is made up of in-flows and out-flows to the system, so it already takes into account

commencements in and completions out (with a few other things thrown in as well like

cancellations/withdrawals out, expiries out, recommencements in, etc). It‘s a complex equation, which is why

we derive it here at NCVER.

Under ‗contract status‘ you have the option of selecting ‗in-training‘ – but you can only select one quarter (one

point in time), you cannot add the quarters.

Monika Vnuk

Senior Research Officer

Data Collections and Analysis Branch

National Centre for Vocational Education Research

Appendix C

Apprenticeship and traineeship completions

By MSA Training Package and trade status, calendar year 2009

Trade status All apprenticeship

and traineeship

completions

Apprenticeship and

traineeship

completions – MSA

Training Packages

Percentage of all

completions

Non-trades 112,873 6,992 6.19%

Traditional trades 42,654 14,964 35.08%

Other trades and

technicians

3,782 875 23.14%

TOTAL 159,309 22,831 14.33% Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research, VOCSTATS accessed March 2011


18

Appendix D

Apprenticeship and traineeship commencements

By MSA Training Package and gender, calendar year 2009

MSA Training Package Total

number

Male Male % Female Female %

AUM – Automotive Industry

Manufacturing

118 116 98.3% 2 1.7%

AUR – Automotive Industry

Retail, Service and Repair

11,415 10,686 93.6% 729 6.4%

LMF – Furnishing Industry 2,238 2,169 96.9% 69 3.1%

LMT – Textiles, Clothing

and Footwear

744 301 40.5% 443 59.5%

MEA – Aeroskills 778 737 94.7% 41 5.3%

MEM – Metal and

Engineering Industry

8,171 7,972 97.6% 199 2.4%

MSA – Manufacturing 9,258 7,490 80.9% 1,768 19.1%

PMA – Chemical,

Hydrocarbons and Refining

749 695 92.8% 54 7.2%

PMB – Plastics, Rubber and

Cablemaking

459 399 86.9% 60 13.1%

PMC – Manufactured

Mineral Products

173 169 97.7% 4 2.3%

PML – Laboratory

Operations

888 543 61.1% 345 38.9%

THC – Recreational Vehicle

qualifications only

126 123 96.0% 5 4.0%

TOTAL 35,117 31,400 89.4% 3,717 10.6% Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research VOCSTATS accessed March 2011


18

Appendix E

Manufacturing industry commencements

MSA Training Packages by gender

Financial year commencements by gender

Traditional trade qualifications

Financial year Total number Full time % Female full time %

2002-03 4,552 97.2% 7.6%

2003-04 5,705 97.1% 3.2%

2004-05 6,960 97.2% 4.4%

2005-06 7,143 96.7% 3.1%

2006-07 6,835 95.4% 2.4%

2007-08 7,288 94.1% 3.0%

2008-09 5,089 92.9% 2.2%

2009-10 5,333 93.3% 2.3%

Non-trade qualifications

2002-03 6,244 96.1% 17.2%

2003-04 5,919 95.1% 19.3%

2004-05 9,836 95.9% 19.0%

2005-06 8,531 96.0% 19.2%

2006-07 8,801 95.5% 16.7%

2007-08 7,298 97.9% 14.1%

2008-09 7,677 78.5% 18.9%

2009-10 7,850 95.5% 13.8% Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research VOCSTATS accessed March 2011

Appendix F

Manufacturing industry commencements

By age and trade status

Traditional trade occupations Age Total number 19 years and

under %

20 to 24 years

%

25 to 44 years

%

45 years and

over %

Calendar year

2003 10,003 63.8% 18.0% 15.5% 2.6%

2004 10,858 61.6% 17.7% 17.3% 3.4%

2005 11,320 61.6% 17.1% 18.0% 3.3%

2006 10,973 62.4% 17.5% 17.0% 3.1%

2007 11,376 62.0% 17.5% 18.0% 2.4%

2008 11,139 61.6% 16.6% 18.9% 2.9%

2009 8,277 60.2% 16.3% 19.2% 4.3%

Non-trade occupations 2003 32,148 17.7% 15.8% 48.7% 18.8%

2004 31,283 17.7% 16.2% 47.4% 18.6%

2005 29,546 17.8% 14.7% 47.3% 20.1%

2006 28,603 16.7% 15.0% 47.6% 20.7%

2007 26,697 17.4% 14.6% 47.9% 20.9%

2008 25,420 16.2% 14.1% 47.9% 21.8%

2009 24,626 13.1% 13.3% 49.2% 24.3% Source: National Centre for Vocational Education Research VOCSTATS accessed March 2011


of 19

Appendix G: Estimation of cohort completions rates for selected occupations

(a) by nominal duration

Occupation Description NSNL*

(Y/N) Qualification Name Nominal duration Average actual

duration Commencements

(Calendar year

2005)

Completions

(Calendar year

2009)

Mechanical

engineering

tradesperson

Employees machine and prepare

aircraft systems, metal parts,

subassemblies and precision

instruments. This group does not

include automotive mechanics.

Y Certificate III in

Engineering -

Fabrication Trade

48 months ? 4,045 3,014 (74.5%)

Fabrication

engineering

tradesperson

Employees produce metal fabricated

products such as structures, frames,

plate assemblies, pipe-work and vessels

using tools, welding and thermal cutting

equipment and fabrication techniques.


Engineering -

Fabrication Trade

48 months 37 months 4,573 2,994 (65.5%)

(b) by average actual duration (mechanical engineering tradesperson given same time period as fabrication engineering tradesperson)

Occupation Description NSNL*

(Y/N) Qualification Name Nominal duration Average actual

duration Commencements

(Calendar year

2005)

Completions

(Calendar year

2008)

Mechanical

engineering

tradesperson

Employees machine and prepare

aircraft systems, metal parts,

subassemblies and precision

instruments. This group does not

include automotive mechanics.


Engineering -

Fabrication Trade

48 months 37 months 4,045 2,722 (67.3%)

Fabrication

engineering

tradesperson

Employees produce metal fabricated

products such as structures, frames,

plate assemblies, pipe-work and vessels

using tools, welding and thermal cutting

equipment and fabrication techniques.


Engineering -

Fabrication Trade

48 months 37 months 4,573 2,970 (64.9%)

Sources: A shared responsibility – Apprenticeships for the 21st Century and National Centre for Vocational Education Research VOCSTATS accessed March 2011

Note: the data provided in tables 1, 2 and 4 of the report is aggregated across categories. In estimating completion rates, MSA has chosen to focus on

occupations and calculate using data from Appendix N of the report. Two estimations are provided using nominal duration and average actual duration as the

time periods.MSA is aware that these are only estimations and in no way precise measurements of completions rates.

-END-

manufacturing skills australia’s response to the report ... · 58. msa's response to the...

Documents