aDVICE recEIved FROM tASMANIAN fARMERS AND gRAZIERS aSSOCIATION, mARCH 2014

strategic Advice on Priorities for Skills and Workforce Development 2014-15

The advice received from Skills Tasmania’s Strategic Industry Partners will inform the development of strategic priorities for vocational education and training (VET) in Tasmania for 2014-15. This advice will also be a topic for general discussion in your next meeting with the General Manager, Skills Tasmania.

The questions below are designed to support you in framing your organisation’s advice. No question is mandatory. If you find there is insufficient space for your response, please attach additional information as required.

We value your response and regard it as important input into discussion about the future of our VET system. Your response will be posted on the Skills Tasmania website.

General Access to quality training and subsidies for workforce DEVELOPMENT

a)Have current and future workforce needs been identified by your industry sector?

Industry needs have been identified for the sector as whole through the 'agricultural skills plan'. The following industry sub-sectors also have plans identifying its particular needs: dairy; bees and wine. The fruit industry is currently in the process of identifying its workforce needs. Dairy is currently working towards an updated plan: the'Dairy Workforce Planning Pilot' Project, which DairyTas and Dairy Australia are progressing.

Sources:

  • Agriculture skills plan
  • Wine workforce Development Plan
  • Dairy skills plan
  • Beekeepers strategic plan

If no, what are the impediments?

Some individual sub-sectors are not adequately resourced (human and financial) to develop an individual plan or not of a significant enough scale in Tasmania to warrant developing a separate plan.

If yes, what are the most crucial current and future skill needs that the VET system could address for your industry sector?

  • Business Management Skills:
  • Innovation (engaging with research, development and extension)
  • Business planning (future strategy, budgets and investment priorities)
  • Financial management
  • Economic and investment management
  • Human resources management
  • Succession planning
  • Technology
  • Supply and value chains
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Market intelligence and consumer trends
  • Market development and product design/development
  • Supply chain processes
  • Technical (professional):
  • Rural sociology
  • People skills
  • Information technology, precision equipment
  • Agronomy
  • Irrigation: technology and engineering
  • Quality assurance
  • Natural resource and other environmental management skills
  • Project management and development
  • Logistics
  • Research, development and extension
  • Policy and analysis skills
  • Team work (including the ability to work in multi-disciplinary teams)
  • Policy and governance in the agriculture industry
  • Communication skills
  • Innovation
  • Technical (operational):
  • OHS/WHS
  • First aid
  • Quad bike handling
  • Chainsaw
  • Computer and technology skills
  • Basic tractor
  • Basic chemical handling
  • Forklift
  • Compliance
  • Literacy and numeracy
  • Work ethic
  • Understanding the basics of farm business models and value and/or supply chains
  • Awareness of the structure of the agricultural industry
  • Team skills
  • Social intelligence and self-management
  • Confined spaces
  • Safe food handling

b)How are Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) in your sector, including TasTAFE, currently providing quality training to meet these skill needs? If possible, please provide examples.

Agricultural based training is only available through a very limited number of RTOs. The quality of delivery varies vastly between those organisations although there does appear to be a real effort by organisations to improve in this area. The new Agritas is only a relatively newcomer to the training arena and is yet to be proven if they will add competition and quality training delivery in the north west area. This is a work in progress.

Some operational skills are being delivered through short courses, however, timing, marketing and promotion of opportunities and delivery by RTOs could be better at times.

  • Two RTOs are currently delivering agribusiness (diploma and certificate IV respectively). The cerificate IV is a first time delivery and there have been some teething problems which have been acknowledged by the RTO and plans are being put in place to remedy the issues. We are unable at this time to speak to the quality of training offered under the Diploma course.
  • Technical operational skills for dairy at this time are only offered by one RTO and considered average. Another RTO will be offering some training in this area but it is far too early to evaluate the quality.
  • One RTO is currently the only deliverer for agricultural traineeships. The level of training is largely assessed by industry as average; reason for this can be apportioned to both the delivery by the RTO and the expectations of industry employers – both need to improve. It is understood that the RTO has taken on board criticisms of its delivery and is working to improve the training model.
  • Shearer/shedhand training delivered under P.E.T. previously provided quality unaccredited training but training flagged when the previous trainer resigned and a replacement was slow to be found. The new trainer’s delivery is yet to be evaluated by the industry
  • Wool classer training has just recommenced by one RTO and seems to be quality focussed but, as the new course has not been long underway, quality of outcomes is as yet largely untested.
  • Quad bike training is delivered by 2 or 3 providers state-wide. Delivery by the private RTOs is adequate to good.
  • One RTO deliver short courses aimed at the viticulture operational skills area. Offerings include Certificate II in Rural Operations and Wine Industry Operations as well as quad bike training; OHS; basic chemical handling; and safe chainsaw operations. They are delivering credible training outcomes which it may be assumed is reflective of the quality of training delivery.
  • One organisation – a new player so quality of training delivery and credibility is yet to be tested.

* Names of individual RTOs have been removed from this advice with approval of
TFGA. Names RTOs have been advised of commentary under separate cover.

What are strengths and weaknesses of VET delivery by RTOs, including TasTAFE, that serve your sector? Are there successes? Are there gaps?

Strengths:

Regional accessibility to training has been reasonably good, however, with the rollout of irrigation schemes a shift of farming commodities from traditional regions to a more statewide base has commenced. This will need TasTAFE to reassess its campus delivery areas or work with industry to ensure the availability of adequate accommodation support for learners, especially for young trainees.

Weaknesses:

There is generally a lack of flexibility in the delivery of courses by RTOs. The need to achieve minimum numbers for courses to go aheadin an often limited market (for example the beekeepers course) is a challenge for all Tasmanian RTOs. Cost efficiencies in a small market are a challenge and courses can become cost prohibitive preventing uptake within industry. The lack of competition, again a symptom of a small or limited market, can also result in complacency in delivery and costing for some courses.

Many farmers do not seem to place value on formal accredited training at the operational ground level. However there has been an increasing acceptance of the need for business training at the business operation level.

The quality of delivery by RTOs, is often criticised as being less than adequate. In part, this may be because of a mis-match between RTO delivery requirements and participant and employer expectations of the training and outcomes. However, generally there is clearly a need for improvement in delivering quality training to the industry particularly focussing on certificates II, III and IV.

Gaps:

There is a need to access qualified and experienced people, who may not be direct employees of RTOs, to be brought in to deliver for specialist knowledge and/or skills areas.

An improvement in offerings of training for irrigation related skills are needed in view of the irrigation schemes in Tasmania. ICT training that has an agricultural flavour (as opposed to the the traditional office based learning environment) would encourage uptake by industry.

Short course skills are also important and have been discussed with TasTAFE

Successes:

  • Youth Futures has achieved high employment outcomes.
  • There is a strong uptake of traineeships by the dairy industry.
  • There is an increasing employment outcome from the TasTAFE pre-employment training delivered through Freer Farm

c)Skills Tasmania provides funding for training subsidies through programs such as the Skills Fund (for employer driven training) and User Choice Program (for apprentices and trainees). How do these programs suit your industry? Do they provide effective ways for aspiring or existing workers to up-skill in your sector? Please also provide feedback on eligibility requirements for participants, subsidy levels and application processes.

Skills Fund

Subsidies for whole qualifications and skills sets is suitable for the industry but tender opportunities being limited to once or twice a year can prove challenging. In the absence of a rolling tender process, the tender periods should be evenly spaced for training to fit outside of peak production and processing time periods, which varies a lot across the various sectors. These periods should as far as possible be constant to allow all participants to plan ahead with some degree of certainty.

The industry needs to become more aware of the purchasing program so as to maximise opportunities for access and take up. This could be as simple as running regional workshop sessions 2 months prior to tender to raise awareness and assist people to work through the application process.

Eligibility, subsidy levels and application processes are adequate. Current subsidy levels could even be considered too generous. Such a high subsidy level runs the danger of devaluing training, encouraging training for training sake and limits the opportunities by effectively shrinking the pool available (a lower subsidy level allows more trading to be subsidised).

The Skills Fund would be improved by building in a greater degree of flexibility around accreditation, outcomes and timing so that it does not cover just one year

As TasTAFE is not equipped to deliver all the needed work skills it is important that private RTOs are afforded the opportunity to tender for training outside of the traditional.

User Choice

Due to the nature of this funding stream, without more consultation,TFGA is not in a position to comment on its effectiveness in meeting trainee needs.

What other improvements could be made to Skills Tasmania funding programs?

The fund is limited to formal (accredited) training. However, some of the operational skills needed can be adequately met through non-accredited training. A good example of this is the dairy based cups on-cups off program which is not eligible for funding. The industry would benifit if the fund was expanded to include a mixture of accredited and non-accredited training.

d)Are employers and employees aware of the nature or level of government subsidies for VET?

Generally, agricultural employers are unaware of or confused with regards to the whole VET subsidy system.

Particularly there is a general lack of understanding about the requirements and differences between state government subsidies through the Skills Fund and User Choice and the Commonwealth’s National Workforce Development Fund (NWDF).

e)How could the VET system better meet the needs of your existing workforce? Can you suggest particular changes that might allow the system to better meet the needs of your industry’s workforce?

The VET system generally needs to listen to industry and design delivery to meet the real skill needs of the individual and the employer. This type of consultation needs to be just the tip of the iceberg. Consultation needs to be thorough and on-going at all levels of VET.

All on-the-job delivery doesn’t work in its current format. The inclusion of some classroom or group learning events add value to the participant and their workplace. However,we should not look to an either/or approach to delivery: we need to find the right balance to deliver the best results. This may mean an ongoing "tweaking" until we fix the balance.

The VET system needs to look to enabling and encouraging a greater use of the latest technology by RTOs to fill the gaps of learning that don’t occur on-the-job.For example the wool industry has just implemented a training delivery that uses streaming of footage of shearers in action that is accessed by a remote trainer to assess and correct technique. A method that is also being trialled in cookery training and assessment deliverd by a high level chef that students would not otherwise have access too.

f)Do employers and workers in your sector value VET? What would improve the valuing of VET in your sector, by employers and workers?

Employers and workers generally do value VET when it is delivered well and is relevant and transferable to the business. However there is currently a perception, deserved or not, of inadequate delivery by RTOs that is devaluing training by the industry.

This could be improved by ensuring that:

Teachers need to know more than clients. For example ChemCert course: often farmers or their workers complain that they know more about how to use chemicals safely and effectively than the trainers deliving the course.

Developing a better understanding of employers of the RPL process – that it isn’t just ‘tick and flick’.

Ensuring that employers and participants have a realistic understanding and expectation of the training system and its outcomes.

Timeliness and cost effectiveness of delivery is improved.

g)Do you know of barriers that prevent aspiring workers to access training or existing workers to skill or up-skill?

  • Poor literacy and numeracy skills a to wner/operator and employee level
  • Casualised nature of employment for a number of sectors: a lack of willingness to invest training dollars in a transient workforce.
  • Location and mode of delivery of training: particularly the frequency, cost and seasonal timing of training. Some training is only delivered in particular regions; often based on historical delivery as opposed to genuine need.
  • Perceived poor quality of delivery undermines the credibility and uptake of training; RTOs need to ensure that they use the right people with appropriate skills and credibility to deliver the training.
  • Loss of productivity through employee absence during peak production and processing periods results in non-participation of employers and employees in training
  • Employers undervaluing formal, accredited training at the operational level.
  • Accommodation and travel needs for trainees as a number of farms are located in isolated areas

How could those barriers be overcome? (If possible, provide examples of particular approaches in your sector that are overcoming such barriers).

  • For trainees:
  • Do block training timed to coincide with farming down times.
  • Working with employers and industry to improve the understanding of employer roles in traineeships.
  • For others:
  • RTOs to develop appropriate timing and methods of course delivery
  • Adopting relevant technology when it becomes available – e.g. video stream shearers in action to assess and correct technique immediately while on-the-job.

Apprentices & Trainees

h)In relation to the current apprenticeships and traineeship model:

What works well for your sector and suits your needs?

Agricultural farm based traineeships have been around since the 1980s and have been useful for many in the delivery of core skills. On-the-job training minimises down time (however as previously expressed should not be overly relied on as a delivery tool).

What could be improved?

  • More flexible choice of elective units of competence that suit the needs of all industry sectors as well as the individual employers and trainees
  • More flexibility in delivery time frames – an improved balance between on-the-job and off-the-job delivery. What is the right balance will vary between particular units of competency.
  • Trainees and employers having access to experts/mentors/coaches
  • Greater use of experts to deliver technical content where the teachers/trainers don’t have current and relevant skills
  • Use of and exposure to best practice case studies including farm visits, where applicable, as a standard part of traineeships.
  • Improved quality of training by ensuring currency of the knowledge and skills of trainers is cognisant of industry best practice.

i)Not all skills are developed through accredited courses or qualifications. Are alternative pathways into your sector effective? Give examples if applicable.

There are a number of pathways into agriculture and traditionally for most sub-sectors. These include:

  • Hereditary; ie through the familial connection
  • New investors
  • Share farming
  • Attainment of skills sets rather than whole qualifications
  • Non-accredited training. Dairy Australia is focussing on more short course skills such as mastitis management, animal health, InCalf, reproduction.

Job Seeker training

j)Do job seekers entering your sector have appropriate skills?

It is a general complaint across industry that job seekers rarely have adequate skills when entering the industry unless they have a farming family background.

Most new entrants are trained on-the-job through both informal and formal means.

Are there gaps in skills that impact on your industry sector?

There are gaps in skills within the industry in a number of areas. The issue at on-farm level is rather complex and is not necessarily due to the availability of training. Issues such as the largely seasonal labour requirement of many sectors; a limited availability of labour supply (willing workers); the widely (and inaccurately) accepted view that agriculture is a low skill area and easy to engage in if unskilled or low skilled; and fiscal constraints play a large part in the gaps in skills.