CHAPTER 2
LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE
2.1 The Committee received submissions from a variety of sources including
migrant and ethnic organisations; the electrical union and industry association;
the manufacturing union; skills assessors with TRA; a RTO; and government
departments with an interest in this legislation. This Chapter of the
report deals with the evidence presented to the Committee in relation
to the issues raised in paragraph 1.18.
Pre-migration assessment and the adequacy of paper based assessment
2.2 The issue concerning pre-migration assessment and its relevance to
the repeal of the TRR Act appears to have been misunderstood. As was noted
above in paragraphs 1.10 and 1.17, the legislative authority for TRA's
existing role in this process comes from the regulations of the Migration
Act 1958. While a number of issues were raised, they are not issues
that would arise as a consequence of repealing the TRR Act and therefore
should have no bearing on the passage of this bill.
2.3 The Committee sought the opinions of submitters and witnesses on
whether a paper-based or portfolio style of assessment [1]
was adequate to make a fair and equitable assessment against a competency
based structure.
2.4 A representative from the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union
told the Committee at the public hearing that in the metal trades the
average number of units of competency required to obtain a trade certificate
would be between 30 and 35. To achieve each unit of competency there is
at least 4 and possibly up to a dozen performance criteria to satisfy,
which would about 140 or more documents. [2]
2.5 The Managing Director of Australian Labour Market Services disputed
this position. [3] Drawing on experience in
the field of trade assessments of some nine years, Mr Newton told the
Committee that he believed that far fewer documents would be necessary
to make a proper assessment. According to Mr Newton this was because:
…basically you would have a number of items of evidence which
might comprise qualifications issued by a training organisation overseas
which would be backed up by information on the nature and content of
that training. There could also be statements from a number of employers
describing in great detail the nature, content, context and so forth
of the work undertaken. You might have somewhere between two and half
a dozen, or a few more, items of evidence. …One item of evidence
would probably provide you with an indication of how a person rates
against a number of units of competency. [4]
2.6 While portfolio assessments will be used in the majority of cases
to make assessments in the domestic context, RTOs will still have recourse
to other assessment methods such as technical interviews or trade tests
if documentary evidence is insufficient to determine whether an applicant
meets the required standards. [5] It is only
in the case of trade tests for migration purposes where, for reasons of
cost, logistics and technical constraints, examinations in the country
of origin are not to be undertaken. [6]
Integrity and cost issues associated with a direct fee-for service arrangement
2.7 Under the new arrangements, RTOs will conduct domestic skill assessments
under a direct fee-for-service arrangement. This raises some potential
issues in terms of ensuring that the integrity of the assessment process
is maintained. A number of issues were brought to the Committee's attention
in this context. Firstly it was noted that a potential conflict of interest
exists given that most RTOs deliver training as well as assessment services.
It was also suggested that RTOs could make more money by making assessments
too difficult or too easy. Concerns surrounding the integrity of the assessment
process would clearly undermine the high level of confidence that has
been achieved under the current system.
2.8 Almost all submissions and witnesses raised concerns that where RTOs
provided both training and assessment services, there would be a financial
incentive for the RTOs not to issue a full qualification and then offer
remedial training, at a cost, to the applicant so that they could gain
full accreditation. However, even if assessment-only RTOs, which have
no interest in offering remedial training, were favoured over those which
do offer training, this would not entirely eliminate the risk of unethical
behaviour. RTOs may be inclined to conduct assessments that are either
too difficult or too basic. Setting a low standard may lead to increased
business, while a high benchmark could generate review business whereby
unsuccessful applicants seeking a review of their application would be
charged an additional fee. [7] The Committee
was informed by DETYA and DEWRSB that this would not be an issue. They
point out that application reviews will not be conducted by the same RTO
that did the original assessment and if the initial decision is overturned
the review fee will be refunded. [8]
2.9 The Committee also considers that the procedures instituted by state
and territory training authorities to monitor and audit RTOs, which can
result in RTOs being deregistered, will minimise the extent of any unethical
behaviour. The committee also noted evidence from DETYA and DEWRSB that
in terms of migration assessments, RTOs are being asked to specifically
address how potential conflicts of interest will be managed as part of
the tender process. [9]
2.10 Concerns were also raised about whether the new system would be
adequately equipped to deal with fraudulent claims. The Committee heard
from one witness who had been involved in skills assessments with TRA
that under the current system all assessors were trained in the detection
of fraudulent documents and had the power to seek confirmation of portfolio
evidence from employers and training organisations. [10]
In the domestic context, fraud will not be a significant issue, because
where RTOs have concerns about the authenticity of an applicant's portfolio
evidence, these can be tested through alternative means such as on-the-job
inspections, trade tests and technical interviews. The Committee believes
that the real issue lies in the assessment of potential migrants where
alternative testing methods are more limited. Although these issues are
not associated with the repeal of the TRR Act, the Committee is pleased
to note that both the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs
and the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business
stated in their submissions that RTOs would be required to implement stringent
fraud prevention measures as part of the tender arrangements for delivering
migration assessments. [11]
2.11 A number of issues were also raised in terms of the likely impact
on costs of the new arrangements. Representatives from the Northern Metropolitan
Migrant Resource Centre and Adult Multicultural Education Services reported
to the Committee that the cost of applications was a barrier to some migrant
populations in Australia, particularly humanitarian and refugee entrants.
It was argued that the fall in applications for skill assessments was
in part associated with the move to full fee recovery. They suggested
that targeted assistance should be made available to vulnerable individuals
to enable them to gain recognition of their skills. [12]
2.12 Concerns were raised in the submission from the Communications,
Plumbing and Electrical Union and the National Electrical and Communications
Association that under a paper-based approach the total costs of assessments
was likely to increase due to the extra documentation that would be required.
[13] The Federation of Ethnic Communities'
Councils of Australia also suggested that under a privatised model higher
cost would be passed on to the applicants. [14]
It was interesting to note, however, in the submission from Australian
Labour Market Services, that assessments cost for RTOs could actually
be lower than those under TRA. This was because of efficiency gains and
greater flexibility associated with being a private organisation, free
of the restraints of the bureaucratic processes faced by TRA.
The efficiencies and flexibilities in [Australian Labour Market Services']…administrative
and assessment arrangements and its related low fixed costs, together
with not having to bear the non-assessment related functions inherent
in a government department, mean Australian Labour Market Services has
a lower cost, and therefore fee, structure than Trades Recognition Australia.
Australian Labour Market Services' assessment application fee is $250,
compared to Trades Recognition Australia's fee of $390. [15]
2.13 The Committee also notes that a consequence of the bill failing
to pass the Senate (apart from the fact that there would remain two non-aligned
skill recognition processes) is that there is likely to be continued upward
pressure on the application fee. The Report of the Legislation Review
associates this with declining levels of applications for assessments
by TRA and the influence of fixed costs which arise irrespective of the
level of application. At the time the review was undertaken and under
the current fee policy, it was estimated that the standard application
fee for 1998-99 would be $495, an increase of 39 per cent. [16]
Infancy of the ARF and the ability of RTOs to undertake assessments
2.14 A central theme running through the evidence received by the Committee
from representatives of the electrical and manufacturing trades, was that
industry is not confident that the ARF and the experience of RTOs are
as yet sufficiently developed to enable the TRR Act to be repealed. With
regard to the development of training packages in the electrical area,
the Committee was informed by a member of the Communications, Electrical
and Plumbing Union (CEPU), that these were currently before the National
Training Framework Committee for endorsement and would not be implemented
until next year. [17] The principal issue appears
to be that RTOs do not yet have experience in assessing against the training
packages in this area. The Committee sees this argument to be circular,
for the only way they will get experience is to do the assessments. These
training packages have been designed in consultation with industry and
reflect the current standards that industry consider as essential for
qualification in a particular field. The sooner the new processes operate,
the sooner the benefits will accrue. In a supplementary submission provided
to the Committee jointly by DETYA and DEWRSB it was also stated that:
The proposed standards for assessment are generally updated versions
of the competency standards which have been available and in use for
several years. For example, competency standards for the electrical
trades were endorsed by the former National Training Board in 1990.
…Clearly assessments have been made against the competency standards
prior to the development of Training Packages. In the absence of Training
Packages, accredited courses based on endorsed competency standards
can be used as the basis of assessment. [18]
2.15 Mr Tighe from the CEPU also told the Committee at its public hearing
that one licensing board in Queensland was intending to retest all people
who came through the new system because of concerns they had over the
ability of RTOs to assess applicants to the appropriate standards. [19]
The Committee considers this to be a quite legitimate action. After all,
the assessment standards in the electrical trades will be different from
what was applied under TRA and peak bodies have a right to ensure that
there has been no deterioration in quality. The Committee is confident,
however, that the new framework will prove to be equally as rigorous and
that retesting will be used only as a short-term resort.
2.16 The Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) outlined a number
of transition issues which it felt would need to be addressed before RTOs
could effectively take over from TRA in conducting domestic trade assessments.
One was that an agreement between each state that qualifications issued
by RTOs would be equivalent to TRR recognition. [20]
At the public hearing a representative of the AMWU conceded that there
was an agreement amongst the states concerning mutual recognition of qualifications
but that they were not convinced that this would be the case in practice.
[21] The Committee considers this to be a highly
speculative position and received no other evidence to suggest that states
would not honour this agreement. Indeed it is noted in the submission
from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs that:
Mutual recognition of training organisations, qualifications and training
products is a major feature of the new arrangements. Therefore a migrant
who subsequently obtains an AQF qualification after arrival, will have
the same award that is held by Australian trained tradespersons, and
one which is therefore accepted and recognised in all States and Territories.
This has not always been the case with current recognition arrangements.
[22]
2.17 The AMWU also suggested that the current system should not be replaced
until the quality of RTOs and the number of assessment-only RTOs had been
resolved. [23]. The Committee notes in the
submission from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs
that quality assurance mechanisms have been built into the new framework.
The registration of RTOs requires minimum national standards, principles
and protocols to be satisfied; RTOs are subject to random compliance audits
with each RTO to be audited at least once in its five year registration
period and in the event of a complaint against an RTO an audit may be
instigated. In addition, the NTF provides for evaluations of training
packages and the operation of the ARF which can be specific to a particular
industry or relate to an aspect of the NTF such as assessment or qualifications.
[24]
2.18 The Committee noted evidence from Australian Labour Market Services
that the quality of assessments would be likely to improve by having RTOs
do all trade assessments as opposed to simply amending the TRR Act to
enable TRA to undertake assessments in areas other than the electrical
and metal trades. This was because RTO assessors have to be qualified
in the particular trades for which they are conducting assessments. This
is not the case under the current structure within TRA. Support for this
view came in the submission from the Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs which stated that:
…all assessments, including workplace and institutional assessments,
should be undertaken by assessors who, individually or as an assessment
team, are competent against the relevant vocational competencies at
least to the level being assessed, and are also competent against the
relevant assessor competency standards. This will mean that assessments
are undertaken by assessors or assessment teams with the required industry
knowledge and expertise, unlike the case with assessments undertaken
by TRA. [25]
2.19 The Committee also notes that under the new arrangements, RTOs have
the capacity to provide unsuccessful applicants with statements of attainment
that detail the competencies that are held by the applicant. [26]
This feature should be welcomed by members of the Northern Metropolitan
Migrant Resource Centre and Adult Multicultural Education Services who
claimed that under the existing framework the inability to provide such
statements was an issue that needed to be addressed in establishing a
new model for assessment. [27]
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
2.20 This inquiry has highlighted the point that the repeal of this legislation
will result in very little practical difference in the way trade assessments
are undertaken in the domestic context. The key improvements are that
assessments will now be consistent with the domestic training system,
that they will be performed by RTOs who have the capacity to deliver these
services in a more efficient and cost effective way than TRA, and that
assessors will now have to be specifically qualified in the trades in
which they are conducting assessments.
2.21 The inquiry has also served to indicate that many of the concerns
raised by witnesses and some senators actually related to issues which
are peripheral to this proposed legislation, and which are unaffected
by the repeal of the Act.
2.22 The ARF, which was developed by Commonwealth and state and territory
governments in consultation with industry, commenced on 1 January 1998.
For some 18 months, domestic training and assessment has been operating
under the auspices of the ARF. It is now time to bring into line the assessment
procedure for the small and diminishing number of people who currently
seek assessment under the TRR Act. As one witness pointed out:
If we are accepting that the operation of the ARF is good enough for
the domestic training system of 206,000 people, it is good enough for
the assessment of 1,000 people. [28]
The Committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill without
amendment.
Senator John Tierney
Chair
Footnotes
[1] The two terms were used interchangeably
throughout the course of the inquiry to describe an assessment technique
based on the presentation of documentary evidence of training, experience
and competency which could include work reports, signed statements of
practical experience undertaken, references, certificates from training
programs and industry certificates.
[2] Mr Julius Roe, Hansard, 20 July 1999,
p. 20
[3] Australian Labour Market Services is an
assessment-only RTO. The organisation was therefore established specifically
to provide trade skills assessments rather than being a training provider.
[4] Mr Glenn Newton, Hansard, 20 July
1999, p. 13
[5] Australian Labour Market Services, additional
information, p. 2
[6] Submission No. 9, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, vol. 1, p. 85
[7] Mr Glenn Newton, Australian Labour Market
Services, Hansard, 20 July 1999, p. 16
[8] Submission No. 12, Department of Education
Training and Youth Affairs/Department of Employment, Workplace Relations
and Small Business, Attachment 7.4 - Request for Tender, vol. 1, p. 140
[9] Submission No. 12, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs/ Department of Employment, Workplace Relations
and Small Business, vol. 1, p.144
[10] Mr Geoff Wallace, Hansard, 20 July
1999, p. 28
[11] Submission No. 9, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, vol 1, p. 88
Submission No. 10, Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small
Business, vol. 1,
p. 110-11
[12] Ms Ainslie Hannan, Hansard, 20
July 1999, p. 6
[13] Submission No. 6, Communication and Electrical
Plumbing Union/National Electrical and Communications Association, vol.
1, p. 45
[14] Submission No. 8, Federation of Ethnic
Communities' Councils of Australia, vol. 1, p. 73
[15] Submission No. 7a, Australian Labour Market
Services, vol. 1, p. 69
[16] Report of the Legislation Review of the
Tradesmen's Rights Regulation Act 1946, November 1998, p. 49
[17] Mr Peter Tighe, Hansard, 20 July
1999, p. 20
[18] Submission No. 12, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs/Department of Employment, Workplace Relations
and Small Business, vol. 1, p. 146
[19] Mr Peter Tighe, Hansard, 20 July
1999, p. 24
[20] Submission No. 4, Australian Manufacturing
Workers Union, vol. 1, p. 23
[21] Mr Julius Roe, Hansard, 20 July
1999, p. 24
[22] Submission No. 9, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, vol. 1, p. 80
[23] Submission No. 4, Australian Manufacturing
Workers Union, vol. 1, p. 23
[24] Submission No. 9, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, vol. 1, p. 79
[25] Submission No. 9, Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs, vol. 1, p. 81
[26] Mr Glenn Newton, Hansard, 20 July
1999, p. 11
[27] Submission No. 4, Northern Metropolitan
Migrant Resource Centre and Adult Multicultural Education Services, vol.
1, p. 24
[28] Mr Glenn Newton, Hansard, 20 July
1999, p. 12