Inquiry into Vocational Education and

Youth Training in the ACT

Submission by Australian Vocational Training Academy Pty Ltd

Organisation briefing:

Australian Vocational Training Academy (AVTA) is a private Registered Training Organisation (National VET Regulator). AVTA currently holds funding agreements with most training directorates across most states and territories. AVTA delivers both fee for service and apprenticeship (government funded) training and assessment services. AVTA delivers training and assessment services in a range of industries including construction, business, sport and hospitality.

Preamble

The following issues are tabled for consideration and are in no particular order.

  1. Work safety inquiry
  2. The ACT holds the unenviable record as the worst jurisdiction for construction industry workplace safety (per capita). The death of Ben Catanzariti in July 2012 was the catalyst for the ACT Work Safety Inquiry (MLA Simon Corbell). The Work Safety Commissioner (Mark McCabe) and panel chair (Lynelle Briggs) were tasked with collecting, reviewing and assessing stakeholder submissions and making recommendations for the consideration of ACT Government. The inquiry outputs totalled 28 recommendations.
  3. The ACT Governments responses to these recommendations were to both either support or agree with these recommendations (June 2013).
  4. AVTA lodged a 5000 word submission which was further supported by a panel interview with both Mark McCabe and Lynelle Briggs, the submission focused extensively on construction industry union training organisations and their extensive failures over a number of years in serving construction apprentice markets (referenced alongside this was the ineffective regulation provided by ACT Government) and the influence this has and continues to have on workplace safety and small business including AVTA.
  5. During the panel interview, the Work Safety Commissioner (Mark McCabe) requested that I (as the CEO of AVTA) personally lodge AVTA’s written submission directly to him for independent investigation which was to be exclusive from the Work Safety Inquiry.
  6. AVTA noted that the recommendations that were made from the Work Safety Inquiry identified the Master Builders Association (MBA) and Housing Industry Association (HIA) as the organisations tasked with driving better safety outcomes across the wider ACT construction industryand that construction unions were excluded in these recommendations
  7. At time of writing I have heard nothing formal from the Work Safety Commissioner (Mark McCabe) in relation to our organisations independent submission Referenced in 1.4
  8. Construction union training organisation failure
  9. AVTA entered the ACT construction industry apprentice training market in 2011. AVTA immediately secured construction industry apprentices from construction union training providers due to apprentices/employers and parents/caregivers experiencing extreme dissatisfaction with these providers. AVTA has continued to receive these transitioning apprentices for a number of years. Reasons for dissatisfaction are many and varied and include but are not limited to the following main reasons.
  10. Construction industry apprentices experiencing years of having no provision of formal off the job training or and/or workplace support. In non-isolated incidents non-servicing of construction industry apprentices has lasted up to 3 years by construction union training providers(alleged by apprentice and employer).

2.3.Inaccurate recoding and management of apprentice data. In a number of incidents, construction industry apprentices who have left their construction union training organisation have indicated that there testamurs are an overstatement of their program engagement. Program data held by the ACT Training Directorate (ACT Government) is different to that managed and tabled by construction union training providers and in a single incidenta construction union training provider supplied different testamurs to the same apprentice (2 different testamurs to the same apprentice on the same day).

2.4.Poorly qualified and inexperienced training personnel. Those construction industry apprentices who have received training and assessment services from construction union training providers claim that the services were provided by unqualified and ill-equipped personnel. Obvious examples include gardeners teaching roof tilers and crane drivers teaching concreters. Apprentices also claim that they were simply given work to “take home and do.”

3.Non to inconsistent regulatory activity by the ACT Training Directorate

Introduction

AVTA connected with the ACT Training Directorate in 2011 to facilitate transferring apprentices from construction union training providers to our organisation. In the ACT, the requirements for transferring apprentices from one training provider to another involve the ACT Training Directorate and ultimate approval is determined by the ACT Training Directorate.

Significant examples:

3.1The ACT Training Directorate continued to refuse to meet with employers and apprentices from failed construction industry training providers who wanted to voice their concerns regarding their exclusion in their training contract (apprenticeship). The ACT Training Directorate instead decided to meet with larger construction industry apprenticeship providers (AVTA was excluded from this)

3.2The ACT Training Directorate opted for AVTA to ‘prove’ the complaints of the apprentices, employers and parents/caregivers by forcing the apprentices to undertake assessments of their current competency to see if there claims could be substantiated (very little program engagement and testamurs that overstate competency achieved). Issues associated with this approach were tabled to the ACT Training Directorate a number of times (e.g. setting up marginalised apprentices for failure) and AVTA only undertook this action under threat of sanction by the ACT Training Directorate.

The outcome of this process was simply further marginalisation of these apprentices. It is pleasing to note that most of these apprentices continued with AVTA to complete their apprenticeship but the time, efforts and resources utilised to reconnect with these apprentices was extensive.

3.3The exodus of construction industry apprentices from construction union training providers continued for a number of years and across a number of trades; initially roof tiling (example referenced above), then bricklaying and then concreting, all with the same story and all with their concerns reported to the ACT Training Directorate

3.4Whilst the exodus referenced above refers to roof tiling apprentices, the exodus continued with brick and block layers, however this time the ACT Training Directorate elected to speak with individual apprentices about their reasons for transfer and it was during this process that apprentices complained that the ACT Training Directorate forced them make statements about wanting to be with friends as the reasons for requesting the change. During this process one parent became furious and took the phone from his son and reprimanded the ACT Training Directorate for ignoring the essence of his sons and employers concerns. This incident was relayed to the ACT Training Directorate who claimed no evidence of this incident occurring, the parent supplied a written letter to the ACT Training Directorate via our organisation confirming the incident having taken place. The ACT Training Directorate advised that there would be an investigation; to date AVTA has not received any formal advice on any outcome from any investigation.

3.5After the death of Ben Catanzariti (ACT construction industry employee), a work safety inquiry was actioned. The employer of Ben Catanazariti had his entire apprentice population serviced by a construction union training provider; in the months after this workplace fatality and work safety inquiry, the construction union training provider is assumed to have made contact with the ACT Training Directorate and advised that it could no longer service these construction industry apprentices (from the employer who sustained the workplace fatality). Our organisation was the only organisation in the ACT that was qualified to take these apprentices and provide the training and assessment services warranted as part of their apprenticeship. Instead the ACT Training Directorate advised the employer (of the workplace fatality) that he could not access our services and instead the ACT Training Directorate rushed Wagga TAFE into the ACT market to take these apprentices on board. I personally contacted Wagga TAFE and asked how they were going to manage this as a remote institution; there advice was ‘probably by work place visits and when they are able to find a trainer/assessor’.

I personally approached the owner of the construction company which sustained the workplace fatality and advised him that we were in the market place and to discount the advice he had received from the ACT Training Directorate and he immediately chose to engage our organisation as his preferred provider.

During one of the initial sessions with these apprentices (employed by the organisation that sustained the workplace fatality) we sought advice on their apprenticeship engagement, All advised that there had been no contact for approximately 18 months, They all signed statements and these were submitted to the ACT Training Directorate (AVTA has had no advice on this outcome)

3.6The ACT Training Directorate has failed to impose appropriate sanctions to construction union training providers instead advising AVTA that it was not their accountability but rather the accountability of the Australian Quality Skills Authority (ASQA). Liaison with ASQA by AVTA has advised that they believe the accountability rests with the ACT Training Directorate.

3.7Whilst AVTA has supplied evidence to the ACT Training Directorate over a 2-3 year period; our organisation has also acquired anecdotal evidence of similar undertakings over the past 10 years. This anecdotal evidence suggests that the ACT Training Directorate has been informed of limitations of construction union training providers for the past 10 years at least

3.8Quality assurance

The ACT Training Directorate has implemented a number of quality assurance processes in the servicing of ACT apprenticeship markets (ACT Requirements for Apprenticeship delivery) however these are simply ignored.

Relevant examples include:

Training providers who has an apprentice departing from their organisation are required to supply (within 30 days) to the ACT Training Directorate a complete and final testamur of all training and assessment engaged in. In the examples detailed above our organisation has witnessed the following:

  • 30 day time line rarely met, this means that apprentices are engaged in apprenticeship training programs without finalised training contracts.
  • Testamurs supplied are inconsistent with the ACT Training Directorates data (this results in the apprentice, the employer, the previous training organisation, the new training provider and the ACT Training Directorate not knowing what the apprentice has done or is required to complete).
  • Construction industry apprenticeship training often requires an appropriate sequence of training (typically units associated with work health and safety is required to be completed first). Testamurs that reflect completion of construction training requirements with no safety training completed are non-compliant with training package requirements and the VET quality framework. This is a common observation

Training providers are required to concurrently complete a record of training and assessments completed and maintain a copy for both themselves and the apprentice, this is rarely if never completed by construction union training providers and impacts on bullet point 2 above.

Canberra Institute of Technology at the top of the ACT Training Directorates pyramid

The ACT Training Directorate has historically shown a propensity to engage staff from the Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT) into its senior executive roles. Obviously there is an element of simplicity to this, to transfer a Government employee but this simplicity creates extensive cost and inconvenience for private training providers as these transferring executives have no concept on managing and supporting private providers due to lack of experience and willingness to develop professionally to understand the more complete VET market space.

In the past 6 months AVTA has acquired approximately 30 apprentices from CIT en-route from a failed union provider. Each apprentice has tabled extensive dissatisfaction and exclusion from their current apprenticeship contract (CIT) and previous training contract (failed union provider). During this 6 month period our organisation has

  1. Been evicted from commercial space owned by CIT under a no competition clause.
  2. Had a unsuccessful funding application with the ACT Training Directorate with advice that other organisations rated more highly than ours (CIT was a successful recipient). It is noted that if CIT do not apply for funding they are typically engaged to assess the applications.
  3. Had to adopt to a new contractual obligation which now requires our organisation to provide written advice to CIT if an apprentice wants to leave their organisation and CIT are given a time frame to rectify the apprentice situation (this is just for us)
  4. Sent commercial in confidence information to the ACT Training Directorate (apprentice) via what was assumed to be a secure server/e-mail for the ACT Training Directorate address but identified that the information was sent directly to a CIT server/e-mail address

What’s happening now?

Currently there is one construction union training provider left in the ACT trading as a fee for service provider (no longer in the apprentice market space). Unfortunately this provider is servicing the high risk licensing market space after failing 100% of its apprentice population that it was contracted to service by the ACT Government over a period of between 2-3 years.

This provider is also providing the mandatory asbestos awareness course and a number of graduates of this course have advised us that when they get the questions wrong and fail their assessment, they are simply told by the trainer/assessor to talk to the person next to them to get the right answer

February 2015

1