senate€¦ · · 1999-10-05may make the request and the committee will consider such a request,...

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Official Committee Hansard

SENATEEMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS, SMALL

BUSINESS & EDUCATION LEGISLATIONCOMMITTEE

Reference: Provisions of the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation RepealBill 1999

TUESDAY, 20 JULY 1999

MELBOURNE

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

INTERNET

The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings,some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint committeehearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representativescommittees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansardtranscripts.

The Internet address is:http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

SENATE

EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS, SMALL BUSINESS ANDEDUCATION LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 20 July 1999

Members: Senator Tierney(Chair), Senator Carr(Deputy Chair), Senators Collins, Ferris,Stott Despoja and Tchen

Substitute member: Senator Murray for Senator Stott Despoja

Participating members: Senators Abetz, Allison, Boswell, Brown, Brownhill, GeorgeCampbell, Crossin, Crowley, Faulkner, Gibbs, Harradine, Hutchins, Lundy, Mackay, O’Brien,Schacht and Watson

Senators in attendance:Senators Carr, Collins, Tchen and Tierney

Terms of reference for the inquiry:

Provisions of the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999

WITNESSES

HANNAN, Ms Ainslie, Community Research and Development Officer, NorthernMetropolitan Migrant Resource Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

WEAVER, Mrs Heather, Coordinator, Vocational Counselling Services,North/West/Central Melbourne, Victoria, Adult Multicultural Education Services 1

NEWTON, Mr Glenn, Managing Director, Australian Labour Market Services PtyLtd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

GLYNN, Mr Peter James, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, National Electricaland Communications Association. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ROE, Mr Julius, Acting National President, Australian Manufacturing WorkersUnion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

TIGHE, Mr Peter Anthony, National Secretary, Communication, Electrical andPlumbing Union . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

WALLACE, Mr Geoffrey James (Private capacity) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

BELL, Ms Margot, Director, Educational Assessments, Department of Education,Training and Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

MANNS, Mr Rodenck, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Training and Youth Division,Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

SAVARIS, Mr Giancarlo, Acting Assistant Secretary, National Office of Overseas SkillsRecognition, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs . . . . . . . . . 49

HAWGOOD, Ms Dianne, Group Manager, Regional Delivery Group, Department ofEmployment, Workplace Relations and Small Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

RICKARD, Mr John, Trades Recognition Australia, Department of Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

O’CALLAGHAN, Mr James, Acting Assistant Secretary, Migration Branch,Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Tuesday, 20 July 1999 SENATE—Legislation EWRSBE 1

Committee met at 9.06 a.m.CHAIR —I declare open this public hearing of the Senate Employment, Workplace

Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee. On 31 April 1999 the Senatereferred to the committee for report the provisions of the Tradesmen’s Rights RegulationRepeal Bill 1999. The committee is due to report to the Senate on 10 August. The purposeof this bill is to repeal the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act 1946, and the decision to repealthe bill is based on the findings of a detailed review of the act undertaken in 1998. The findingwas that the government’s training reform process, in particular the development of trainingpackages and the introduction of the Australian Recognition Framework, had removed thecontinuing need and rationale for the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act.

I welcome all observers to this public hearing. The committee today is dealing with twobills, and I would advise that the schedule for this morning is fairly tight. I would thereforerequest witnesses to make only brief opening statements, as you may be assured we have allread the submission.HANNAN, Ms Ainslie, Community Research and Development Officer, NorthernMetropolitan Migrant Resource CentreWEAVER, Mrs Heather, Coordinator, Vocational Counsell ing Services,North/West/Central Melbourne, Victoria, Adult Multicultural Education Services

CHAIR —Welcome. The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public but if at anytime you wish to give any evidence, part of evidence or answers to questions in camera youmay make the request and the committee will consider such a request, but all evidence maysubsequently be made public by order of the Senate. I now invite you to make a brief openingstatement.

Ms Hannan—Thank you. I am making this presentation this morning with Heather Weaver.Our services have significant experience in working with non-English speaking backgroundpopulations and new arrival populations. As you would appreciate, employment is a majorindicator of a new arrival’s ability to resettle and to take advantage of the opportunities withina receiving society. With an incidence of more than 40 per cent unemployment in some non-English speaking background communities, there is obviously enormous hardship and socialisolation. As employment is one of the key indicators of migrant resettlement, the processunder which the new arrival is able to get his or her trade recognised needs to be understood,both within the settlement planning context and as an employment assistance strategy.

Resettlement and employment need to be understood as a continuum of interlinking need.To illustrate this I would like to quote briefly a job club participant who was a refugee fromSerbia. He was wanting to get his trade qualifications recognised. In interviewing, he says:I dream of having the freedom to do what I want, but in order to do this you need financial security. Anopportunity to have things I have worked for four years on my personal development to recover. I needto break away to forget my past. To contribute to Australia to do this I need a job.

I quote this because I think this committee needs to look at the policy framework structureas well as the individual need. It is within this context and with the experience of workingin the employment arena for many years and actually having discussions with TradeRecognition Australia in the past and representatives from the CEPU that we make thissubmission to the committee.

What I wish to say is based on an understanding of resettlement planning. I will, as a wayof introducing our argument, outline the context and the principles underpinning the suggestedframework and then focus briefly on the particular barriers and the consequent outcomes for

EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS, SMALL BUS. & EDUCATION

EWRSBE 2 SENATE—Legislation Tuesday, 20 July 1999

new arrivals. Then I will pass over to Heather Weaver. We want to briefly touch on just acouple of points from our submission on what we think would facilitate the introduction ofan equitable system. Whilst our comments have application to all new arrivals, in our reviewcomments this morning we will focus on the particular needs of humanitarian refugee newarrivals. This is done as we believe it actually highlights our argument. Our argument is aboutthe need for targeted programs and that the targeting of programs needs to include traderecognition.

Our argument rests on the assumption that taking refugee humanitarian entrants is theresponsibility of all civilised societies. Although the responsibility for coordination ofsettlement planning is arguably with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,the provision of services to all Australians, whether they be new arrivals or not, is theresponsibility of all government departments. Humanitarian settlement is not just an act ofcharity alone, but it is governed by an understanding that with adequate resettlement servicesindividuals will more readily become socially and economically effective members of theAustralian community. The economic cost to Australia of not addressing the issue of traderecognition for people coming into the country has potentially enormous unemployment costs.As employment is one of the key indicators of successful resettlement, there is an obligationon the receiving society to establish pathways and policies and mechanisms in practice thatwill facilitate the likelihood of a new arrival humanitarian refugee entrant obtainingemployment.

Overhead transparencies were then shown—

Ms Hannan—The first overhead shows the size of the population we are actually talkingabout. I want to illustrate this point by looking at the actual cost of not doing this. There isan imperative and an obligation to provide for adequate resettlement programs. Australiathrough its immigration intake continues by world standard to accept comparatively largenumbers of refugees humanitarian entrants for permanent resettlement. You will see by lookingat this that in 1997-98 Australia’s immigration target was 80,000, of which 12,000 werehumanitarian refugee entrants. That is from the National Audit Office. This figure of 12,000,although dropping a bit, is actually consistent over time. We can now look at the particularpopulations we are talking about this morning. In some geographical areas of Melbourne itactually intensifies this problem. The Northern Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre coversthe City of Moreland and Hume.

The next overhead shows that there are 110,000 residents who actually speak a languageother than English at home. That is from the ABS in 1996. Within these populations there aremore than 30 language groups and 40 ethnicities. The particular groups that are actuallyaffected by trade recognition are the Arabic communities, which are one of the largestpopulations in terms of new arrival refugee humanitarian entrants, the former Yugoslaviancommunities and a range of other communities.

This slide shows the new arrival populations. I will not go through all the figures in it. Youactually see that in our catchment area there are an enormous number of humanitarian refugeeentrants. In fact, looking at that, there are about 47 per cent, which is the yellow area.

CHAIR —Could you take the slides a little more slowly?

Ms Hannan—I am sorry. This slide talks about the increase of people coming into the area.There are a bit over 2,000 people coming into the area. The new arrivals who have enteredare under three broad categories, which are family, skilled and humanitarian entrants. The 57per cent of the total new arrivals in the cities of Hume and Moreland have entered under



family spouse categories, 47 per cent under humanitarian refugee and only two per cent underskilled migration programs. The trade populations affected that we see in our catchment areaare people from the former Yugoslavia and from Turkey—the refugee humanitarian entrantsfrom Turkey are the Kurds—the Iraqis and other Arab countries. The main trades affected inour area are the electrical and metal trades.

The potential number of unemployed refugee humanitarian new arrivals, and hence thepotential size of the problem, can be determined by two methods: firstly, by looking as wedid in the first slide at the humanitarian migration program, where as you will remember therewere 12,000 new arrivals a year coming in out of that program, but also by looking now atthe results of a longitudinal study of the effects of unemployment of new arrivals done by theDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. This is very interesting data; I have madecopies of this data for the committee. By looking at it you see that humanitarian entrants sixmonths after arrival experience 78 per cent unemployment, and even 42 months after arrivalin the country they still experience 34 per cent unemployment. There is a direct relationshipbetween migration category and unemployment. Currently, 78 per cent of the 7,800 annualhumanitarian refugee entrants are unemployed for the first six months when they come here;78,000 is the actual number of people eligible to work—so they are in the work age group.

The other important point for the committee to elaborate on our submission is the cost ofthe problem. The economic cost of unemployment to the nation is obvious, but the enormityof that loss needs to be appreciated. The national income is around $35 billion a year—lowerthan it would be if unemployment were only about three per cent, a rate close to fullemployment. The direct budget cost of unemployment from increased outlays on incomesupport and loss of revenue is $20 billion a year. Figures from Centrelink in this slide revealthe following costs per family. The cost per family of being unemployed is a bit over $23,000per year, for two children and two parents.

There are particular barriers to employment and trade recognition for new arrivalhumanitarian refugees. There are particular issues around the lack of provision of qualityinformation provided to potential migrants at overseas posts. Different countries give peopledifferent information. Information given overseas does not include the two-step process ofassessment followed by recognition, and the possible costs involved to a migrant before theycome here. There is also an inconsistency in what information people get. People before theycome to the country often get a choice of two or three or four host countries. What we believeactually happens is a refugee is not told, for example, that if he is an engineer he may learnthat Australia will not recognise prior learning but in fact Canada will. We believe that if therefugee is told that in making a decision about his country that would help with this process.

On arrival, the specific difficulties of refugee humanitarian entrants in establishingqualification levels and their level of experience is currently not taken into consideration aspart of the trade recognition process. The particular issues facing humanitarian refugees arenot considered currently in this assessment process. We put to you that this needs to beconsidered, particularly given Australia’s obligations to accept humanitarian refugee entrants.

In addition to the individual solutions, there is a need—and this is what our submissiontouches on—for structural reform, for a planning framework. There are two major policyconstructs that inform the areas of resettlement and employment; they are immigrationresettlement policy and employment labour market program policy. Both policy areas havebeen developed over time and have responded through various policy initiatives to theresettlement employment needs of migrants and humanitarian refugee entrants, but neither has



explicitly responded to the employment resettlement needs of new arrival humanitarian refugeeentrants.

Only since 1991 through the National Integrated Settlement Strategy have there beenattempts to develop a mechanism that will facilitate improved planning and coordination formigrant settlement services across government departments. The specific aim of providing abetter coordinated range of services for humanitarian refugee entrants has only in fact beendeveloped since 1997 with the introduction of the National Integrated Humanitarian Strategyas part of the larger NISS.

Even with this attempt at the coordination across government departments, no policyconstruct has been developed that incorporates immigration settlement policy with employmentand labour market program policy. The many implications of this include an inability to fullyappreciate the resettlement employment needs of new arrival entrants, as each of these needsare partly embedded in each of the policy areas. This split means that there is a risk that anunderstanding of the overall issue becomes fragmented and, as a result, the energy to focuson this issue becomes dissipated. There needs to be a range of interlinking strategies that aredeveloped to ensure that resettlement employment issues become the responsibility of the tworelevant government departments—the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairsand the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

This may be achieved through strengthening the Integrated Humanitarian Strategy, throughthe targeting of labour market programs or through particular initiatives like ensuring theconsistency of information at overseas posts and the collection of data at overseas posts. Weactually currently have data on people’s trades but we do not use it to implement programs.

There are a number of principles and there is a need for an established framework, becauseany policy reform needs to be based on a framework. To achieve employment resettlementoutcomes the need for a service delivery needs to be understood along a continuum ofemployment resettlement needs. The framework needs to be based on a series of principles.General principles can be found, I believe, to help the commission in Charter of Principlesfor a Culturally Diverse Australia. People would be familiar with the charter, which is thisgovernment’s charter. What is good about the charter is that it is based on accountabilitymechanisms and there is a direct ability to respond.

What we are suggesting is that the charter should be used as a background, because it ismeasurable and it is generic. More specifically policy reform and trade recognition processneeds to acknowledge the industrial environment, work type and adequate work remuneration.As you will have seen in our submission, we use the policy principles of the EthnicCommunities Council of Victoria for employment, education and training as the basis for ourcomments on the principles. We are saying that there needs to be a framework and that thereneeds to be policies to inform that framework.

I will not go through the principles, you have seen them in the submission, but there is animportant point in point 4 of the submission, and that is the issue of equity of access, whichI draw to your attention is different from access and equity—that is actually throughaffirmative action—because they have different needs we have to give different services todifferent people. I realise that I have started to touch on and elaborate on a number of complexissues, but I would like to hand over to Heather, who is going to look at a couple of caseexamples.

CHAIR —Please be brief as we are running out of time.



Mrs Weaver—Adult Migrant Education Services and its partners provide English languagetuition for newly arrived migrants and refugees and, as they do so, meet a large proportionof the newly arrived population. The vocational counselling program provides assistance andinformation to migrants and refugees in their settlement period on requirements for entry toprofessions and trades in Australia. As a result of this work, AMES has had ongoing liaisonwith Trade Recognition Australia and holds in high regard its quality control mechanisms andthe support TRA has gained with employers, unions and trade trained individuals.

We begin this presentation by saying that, from our point of view, we prefer TRA tocontinue assessments, but we acknowledge that the Australian Recognition Framework andthe Australian Qualifications Framework have removed the rationale under which they provideassessments. Also, from our point of view and the point of view of our clients, the simpledevolution of TRA to RTO status would not solve the barriers that our clients face.

In informing the policy reform to be undertaken, we would like to outline the barriersmigrants and refugees currently face in trades assessment. The recommendations we aremaking may also allow successful tenderers, if that is the way that the new model is to beorganised, to achieve a level of business that would lend success in terms of market viabilityand would lend credibility to their assessments. We would like to make it very clear at thisstage that we are in no way talking about a reduction in standards in any industry.

I will outline the barriers. Some of them may seem a little remote to what we are talkingabout today, but I will very quickly bring them back to why we are advocating the model wehave. The first of the barriers and the major barrier is the lack of concession fees forassessments for income support recipients. Since the loss of fee relief, the holders of healthcare cards, refugees and humanitarian entrants have faced an insurmountable barrier in seekingtrade recognition. For an overseas qualified electrical mechanic or electrician, the costs arebriefly: document assessment and initial assessment, $390; further testing, $270; restricted Blicence, $95 to $100; licensed electrical mechanics course—an essential part of the process—$450; the A-grade licence—the final step—$95 to $100. The cost in total is over $1,000.

If this individual were a radiographer, for example, he would have the cost of much of thatassessment met or subsidised. The result of these imposts has been a dramatic reduction inthe number of refugees and humanitarian entrants who are able to seek trades assessment. Inone month in 1998, AMES had 59 trade qualified individuals—not all of them in the tradesassessed by TRA. Of those, only three sought trade assessment. In the past we would havehad 70 per cent of those people seeking trade assessment.

One client, a Geelong resident whose name is Branco, was unable to meet the assessmentcosts. He heard about the new apprenticeship scheme and thought that this may be a methodof entry into his trade. However, he was also unable to enter his trade by this method becauseas an adult he cost much more to employ than a young person. He therefore remains in theranks today of the unemployed. He is at great risk of losing the skills he developed overseasand he battles depression. This refugee may have to be totally retrained at Australia’s cost inan allied field in order to finally gain employment. He will face a competitive labour marketat an older age and with no experience in this new area. If we were to simply subsidise thecost of his assessment we would save ourselves the cost of income support for an entire familyand training dollars.

One client of AMES borrowed money to undertake his trades assessment. He failed becauseof a lack of understanding of the Australian requirements. He now faces repayment of the debton a Newstart allowance. A preparatory course, similar to those subsidised by professionals,



would have assisted him to have a greater understanding of what our requirements were andto test his skills against Australian requirements.

At our St Albans centre at the moment, we have three trade trained individuals from theformer Yugoslavia who would probably meet Australian standards. They cannot even attemptassessment because they cannot meet the costs involved. They, again, will possibly remainin the ranks of the long-term unemployed and possibly move into the ranks of the very long-term unemployed.

The lack of clear guidelines as to what is being tested is also a problem. The client Imentioned before, Hassan, may not have failed had he been aware of the importance we placeon particular aspects of the job. I do not know how many of us would like to try to resitexaminations in our particular field without any period of preparation. How would we liketo try to sit a test in our field in Arabic in a culture completely alien to our own and be testedagainst domestic standards, not as an invited overseas professional?

The lack of provision under the current act is also a difficulty because it fails to provideunsuccessful candidates with a statement of competencies that were achieved, to provideinformation to potential employers of current skill levels which may then encourage employersto feel that the extra cost of employing an adult is worthwhile in the sense that they canundertake more skills independently. This would also give the individual access to trainingwhich is linked to employment in many areas.

In order to address the barriers as outlined—the barriers I have just discussed—we wouldsupport the fourth model outlined in the review. This model, which retains a governmentalmanaging agent—and NOOSR was recommended—provides the best opportunities to addressinequities between professionals and trades qualified and ensures ease of access regarding tradeassessment as NOOSR is recognised domestically and abroad.

Under NOOSR’s umbrella, a core group of TRA staff would manage the program. NOOSRis represented in each state by such organisations as, in Victoria, the Overseas QualificationsUnit. These units provide a point of contact in the states domestically for selected refugeesand migrants and provides information regarding academic qualification and referral toprofessional bodies for recognition. A core group of TRA staff again could provide that initialpoint of contact, initial assessment, which may be sufficient to issue a certificate or referralto an RDO. These core groups would be informed by broad based consultative committees.Due to time constraints I will move on quickly to my last paragraph.

CHAIR —Perhaps you could incorporate that because we will not have time for questions.There has also been a request from a member of the committee that the tables that you haveput up here today be incorporated. Do you have any objection to that happening?

Ms Hannan—No. I have made copies for the committee.Senator CARR—Could we have them in theHansardrecord so that people reading this

transcript can see the full context?CHAIR —Is it the wish of the committee that the remainder of Mrs Weaver’s opening

statement and the tables referred to be incorporated? There being no objection, it is so ordered.The documents read as follows—Mrs Weaver—In order to address the barriers as outlined we would support the fourth model outlined

in the review. This model, which retains a governmental managing agent, with NOOSR being recom-mended, provides the best opportunities to address inequities in assessment support between professionalsand trades qualified and also ensures ease of access to information re-trade assessment, as NOOSR



isrecognised both domestically and internationally for its assessment provision.Under NOOSR’sumbrella a core group of staff with the level of expertise currently held by TRA would manage theprogram. NOOSR is represented in each state by organisations such as the Overseas Qualifications Unit.This unit provides a point of contact domestically for selected refugees and migrants and providesinformation regarding academic assessment and referral to professional bodies for recognition, whererequired. A core group of staff again with the level of expertise of current TRA staff would provide apoint of initial contact, an initial assessment and referral, where required, to an RTO.

These core groups would be informed by a broad-based consultative committee of DIMA, industry,union and community representatives. RTO’s, under this model would provide further assessment for thosetrades people who did not meet requirements, ie had not undertaken the standard form of training asoutlined in the criteria country guides or who did not perform well in the initial assessment.

RTO’s selected, would preferably be, assessment only organisations, however, this would be difficultto achieve, given the likely level of business. RTO’s would need to meet standards set down, not onlyunder the ARF, but also as determined by the consultative committee.

NOOSR, as a governmental management agent, is our preferred model as this should open the doorto some equity between holders of professional and trade qualifications. Many professionals have accessto subsidies either for exam fees or assessment costs eg Radiographers under the ASDOT scheme(Australian Subsidy for Disadvantaged Overseas Trained). Many professionals also have access toBridging funding to pay for further study. Accountants who are required to become familiar withAustralian laws, in such areas as Taxation, just as Electrical Mechanics are required to undertake LEMcourses, have access to bridging funding to pay for required subjects. Trade qualified individuals, on theother hand, are required to self fund such courses. While it can be argued these TAFE courses are notas expensive as university courses, the cost is more than most refugees/humanitarian entrants can afford.In some trades we also place further barriers to refugees and humanitarian entrants returning to their tradein that course entry is dependent on having a sponsor (employer). As outlined previously if the individualcannot afford to pay for assessment or fails assessment and does not get a statement of competenciesachieved to sell himself as an advanced level apprentice, he is then prevented from entering anapprenticeship because of his age. He cannot avail himself of training either because he is not employed.Such training would have enabled him to get the skill statement that would enable him to get the job.

Ludicrous situations like this, result in Australia being unable to benefit from skills, developed at nocost to the Australian taxpayer and cost Australia dearly in terms of ongoing income support for wholefamilies, retraining dollars and often health costs associated with long term unemployment.

To conclude then, if the model of trade assessment is to change, we would support a model withNOOSR as a managing agent, providing staff with the current level of expertise as TRA staff, wereinvolved.

We support this model because it ensures ease of access abroad and domestically, provides a singlebody to address issues of equity and quality and has experience in working with occupation registeringbodies. It also seems to provide the best method of giving refugee and humanitarian entrants access tofee subsidies for assessments.



CHAIR —Ms Hannan, you mentioned earlier in your presentation that not enoughappropriate recognition was being given to existing skill levels of people who are coming intothe country. Are any particular areas of skill or occupation disadvantaged because of this, orare there any countries where there are particular problems that stand out? We have heard overtime that doctors, for example, come out and cannot get recognised. Are there any that youwould like to draw to our attention?

Ms Hannan—I would want to give a very accurate answer on that. Humanitarian refugeesflee from one post to another to get out of the country, so it is hard to comment on. In ourexperience with the Iraqi points of entrance people coming out of Iraq have particular issuesand problems with information. The general rule is that the more conflict a country is in themore difficulty people have with access to information because the first point of call ispeople’s safety. So people are not getting information.

CHAIR —Is this because they are often fleeing without documents?

Ms Hannan—They have no documents. Also, if a new post is set up overseas—and therewill be a range of new posts with the Kosovo crisis—people often are there in a hurry. Sopeople do not get the information about what the receiving country has to offer because thereis not the link between settlement planning and employment. The idea is to actually get peopleout of the country.

Mrs Weaver—The more culturally distant the more difficulties there are. Often people willcomment to you: ‘I may have been told that but I didn’t take it in; there was so much to takein at the time.’

CHAIR —So they have been provided with information but they are not necessarily—

Mrs Weaver—In some instances they may be; in some instances they are not. But alsobecause of the amount of information that is provided and the fact that it is so culturally distantto what they are used to, it is often very difficult for people to fully understand what thismeans, even if given in their own language.

CHAIR —Ms Hannan, the tables you put up showed that after six months 78 per cent ofpeople who had come out on humanitarian programs were still unemployed after six months,which was way above even family reunion. Could you provide us with some insights into whatare the basic causes of that high unemployment, given that that group, you would think, arealmost random in terms of who is fleeing from what countries, from what regions. Why is itso high?

Ms Hannan—It is high for a number of reasons. One is the actual nature of thehumanitarian refugee program. People are not actually having a chance to bring thedocumentation to the country and, with trade recognition, not recognising that people arehaving difficulty explaining what their previous trades are. It is also to do with the settlementprocess, although it is clear that humanitarian refugee entrants have a higher propensity to tryto get into employment because often they are trying to bring out other people from overseas.

CHAIR —In terms of the causes of unemployment being a result of lack of recognition ofskill, could you give us some understanding of how much of this is due to the mechanics ofthe process of our recognition versus how much of it is actual lack of skill, perhaps becauseof training programs in other countries in particular professions or trades not being up to thesame standard as Australian ones?

Mrs Weaver—There are probably two answers there. One is that often when tradespeoplecome here they get caught in a very vicious cycle. They cannot afford to have their trade



qualifications assessed and they cannot access apprenticeships because of their age. Oftenfurther training in the area is attached to employment; you cannot get into training unless youhave a sponsor. So the person cannot get their qualifications assessed and cannot do thetraining that would help them get back into work and perhaps get an employer to take aninterest in them, and they cannot break into our apprenticeships because of their age. So theyare totally locked out of the area where, as an adult, they have experience.

We talk to them day after day after day about: ‘You cannot do this so maybe you can doa bit of training here.’ But, for example, with an electrician if you look at training in a similararea you are looking at jobs for an electrical engineer. Jobs for electrical engineers are veryhard to come by, even if you did do some training. So that person who, if he had a subsidyto get his qualifications assessed, may be able to get employment to save money to start hisown small business becomes totally locked out. You get intense frustration building, whichmeans that they are often unsuitable then for even starting to think about employment inanother area initially, until they get over this hurdle.

Also there is the difficulty that in some countries the type of training that is undertaken doesnot lend itself easily to our assessment. They may have the skills but when we put themthrough trade assessment we are asking questions that seem to come to them from a tangent.Often you experience that yourself. You often feel, ‘Yes, I did know the answer to that, butI didn’t understand the question that would lead me to that answer.’

CHAIR —All these problems that you have alluded to this morning have developed underthe current legislation, not under the future legislation, which is not in place yet. Looking atyour submission, you seem to support the broad thrust of the government’s proposed changes.So could you elaborate on in what ways the changes might affect what you have been referringto so far.

Mrs Weaver—Because of the barriers we outlined we felt that if trade assessment cameunder the broad umbrella of NOOSR it would allow access to the subsidies that professionalshave in seeking preparation for training or preparation for assessment. For example, aradiographer can seek funding, under the Australian Subsidy for Disadvantaged OverseasTrained, to pay for his assessment fees. Other professionals can seek subsidies under thebridging funding provided for NOOSR to pay for their additional training. We felt then thatif trade assessment were brought under the umbrella of trade training, it would at least helpto alleviate some of the barriers that we have found that our clients have experienced.

Ms Hannan—In addition to that, we are saying that certain populations need to havetargeted assistance. If in the settlement policy we are actually bringing in humanitarianrefugees, you actually need to ensure that they have an opportunity to get their tradesrecognised and also that you look at their particular cases. So we need to go back to a positionwhere we are actually targeting resources for certain groups to allow for equity.

CHAIR —Thank you very much. Senator Collins has questions.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mrs Weaver, you mentioned that these changes do notreally deal with the issue of the barriers that we were discussing. Can you respond to theconcern that portfolio assessments may in fact make those barriers worse? There is the claimthat the refusal rate has actually risen since the methods of assessment were diminished in1988, and that is mostly in response to the fact that many people cannot put together all thedocumentary evidence they would need for a portfolio assessment. Have you had anyexperience in that area?



Mrs Weaver—We have not had quite so much experience, because basically very few ofour clients are ever actually now able to undertake trade assessment. However, I would saythat, when we are looking at the situation of refugees, yes, it is very true—and we strike thiswith our professionals—that they are unable to get together the documentation they requireand are unable to get supporting information from their countries of origin. We have tried,even through various organisations overseas, to get information out of countries that are war-torn and so forth, and we have found extreme difficulty in doing that.

I would imagine that, in terms of refugees and humanitarian entrants, it would be necessaryto positively discriminate in order to assist them to overcome these barriers. However, in thetrades area, providing that competency testing can be made culturally appropriate, I wouldimagine that that would help people to overcome those barriers, because it is a more hands-onassessment.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I am curious, with respect to deregulation in this area, asto whether you think it allows more scope for difficulties with migration agents promotingcompetency skills amongst the population that you deal with.

Ms Hannan—Senator Collins, can you rephrase the question? I am not sure exactly whatyou mean.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —One of the concerns we are addressing will be how wedeal with fraudulent claims as to competencies. Do you think that deregulation in this area,away from the TRAs, will contribute further to the problems associated with how migrationagents act?

Ms Hannan—Yes; it could. That is something that needs to be looked out for. But thereare a number of mechanisms. There are a number of safety issue requirements where peopleneed to have their competencies measured—and we would never suggest otherwise to that.We are saying that the process needs to be a bit more equitable, people need to be able tomatch their competencies to the Australian setting, and there need to be mechanisms in theprocess—rather than actual deregulation as such.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —So that those competencies are measured or tested ratherthan necessarily just being read about on paper?

Ms Hannan—Yes; and so that it is matched to the Australian setting so that, if somebodyhas six out of 12 competencies, they can actually get a certificate for that. Currently in sometrades what happens is that you have to get a certificate for all of the competencies, otherwiseyou get nothing. So somebody cannot compete with the existing people.

Mrs Weaver—I would add that that was why we have suggested that a core group of TRAstaff should continue to be involved under the NOOSR umbrella.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Are you aware of the basis on which NOOSR funding isavailable for assessments?

Mrs Weaver—Yes. There are two schemes. One of them affects assessments, and the otheraffects preparatory courses for assessments. The first of those schemes is the AustralianSubsidy for Disadvantaged Overseas Trained, and that is available to a variety of professionals.I mentioned radiographers, but it is available to a number of health professionals and so forth,to pay for their initial assessment. For example, at our Broadmeadows centre, I have aradiographer who is going to access that training to have his radiography qualificationsassessed. So he is one step ahead of my electrical mechanic already.



Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Do you know the rationale for this election of the particularoccupations?

Mrs Weaver—No, I do not.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —And for the other scheme?

Mrs Weaver—The other is the availability of bridging funding under NOOSR to pay forpreparatory courses for assessment. I mentioned, when I was outlining the barriers, that manyof us need to realistically think about what it would be like for us to sit down—particularlyif we had been in a refugee camp for six or seven years—and be tested in our occupation bothon paper and hands-on. The hands-on experience is probably not something that we wouldforget, but the theory part is something that we may forget after a period of time in a refugeecamp or wherever. It is not possible for many people who have been through such horrificexperiences to suddenly walk through a door, sit down and do a theory test in their area. Theyneed time to adjust to what it is that we place particular emphasis on—the safety requirementsand so forth—and that time is provided for professionals in subsidised courses.

Take, for example, an electrical mechanic who goes along to do his test and has had nopreparation. He is unclear about what he is really being tested on, and he is coming from avery culturally distant point of view. When he goes along to do his licensed electricalmechanics course, which is near the end of the steps that he has to go through, he has to payfor it himself. If he were a nurse, it would be paid for him. So there is real discriminationbetween professionals and tradespeople.

Senator CARR—Given your experience within the migrant communities, particularly inthe northern suburbs, and their involvement with the new vocational education trainingframeworks—the new deregulated model that we have come to understand over the last coupleof years—have you had any experiences of people not receiving quality training?

Mrs Weaver—The quality mechanisms that have been put in place seem to be relativelyeffective. My concern has always been that, when you look at a privatised area, it can oftenbe difficult for providers—for example, in the trades area—to take on board the costs of newequipment and so forth that are constantly needed to ensure that trades people are up-to-dateand world competitive in their skills if they are not sure that they are going to be running thatprogram next year. So, certainly, there are quality control mechanisms in place, but I thinkthere are certain disadvantages in the lack of a sense of continuity of training in the area.

Senator CARR—This particular legislation places great emphasis upon the role of theregistered training organisations. What experience have you had with registered trainingorganisations in the training of tradespeople, particularly in the regions that you are mostfamiliar with?

Mrs Weaver—In my instance, I have tended, as a vocational counsellor, to refer peopleto institutions that have perhaps had an ongoing role in this area. I have not had quite so muchexperience with others new to the area.

Senator CARR—Are you experienced at all with any of the registered training organisationsthat are currently providing assessment-only services?

Mrs Weaver—Yes, we have some dealings with them. The ones that I have utilised for ourclients have tended to be people who have been involved in the field for some period of time.

Senator CARR—Are they public sector entities?

Mrs Weaver—Yes, public sector.



Senator CARR—So the automotive college at the Kangan Batman TAFE, for instance, isa school?

Mrs Weaver—Yes. The VUT is another example in the hairdressing area. Then there isthe Flagstaff centre and so on.

Senator CARR—How many of those have been operating solely as assessment providersas distinct from training providers? The TAFE colleges clearly have been in the field for agreat length of time. I know there are very strong TAFE colleges in the northern suburbs,despite their financial difficulties at the moment. They have, nevertheless, been there for a longtime. How many registered training organisations are specifically geared towards theassessment process only?

Mrs Weaver—I know of none, but that may just be a lack of knowledge on my behalf. Thatwas why I suggested in my submission that in this area there may be difficulty in getting thenumbers of registered training organisations that would be able to carry out an ongoingbusiness.

Senator CARR—Yes. I just wanted to check your experience in that area because obviouslyI will need to canvass these questions with the department and others later on. Regarding therelationship between the client and the training provider—or the assessment provider in thiscase—given that there is money involved, do you think that there is an inherent question aboutintegrity? At what point do we say that, because there is a fee for service involved, there isa question that could be raised about the level of quality provided in return for that fee?

Mrs Weaver—I think that is always going to be an area of concern. It is very difficult togauge exactly what is happening, but it is an area of concern that I have.

Senator CARR—In your experience, what assessments does the state training authority take,in terms of its audit controls of training authorities in the areas which you have dealt with?

Mrs Weaver—There are very stringent controls. My organisation, for example, is aregistered training authority in some areas and we are subject to very stringent controlsbecause, although we are a provider of governmental services in some aspects, we are alsoa private provider in some ways and we are subject to very stringent controls.

Senator CARR—What sorts of things happen to you? What is the nature of the auditprocedures from the state training authority with your body, which is well known and highlyreputable? What sort of interaction do you have with the state training authority?

Mrs Weaver—We have had ongoing audits. I have not been party to what is actuallyhappening in those audits; that is not part of my role. We are certainly audited on a veryregular basis and our training arrangements, the qualifications of our teachers, the content ofour courses, the comfort of our clients and the facilities they have are all audited on a veryregular basis.

Senator CARR—And you are largely government funded?

Mrs Weaver—Yes.

Senator CARR—Are the same standards applied to private providers? Is the level of supportprovided for those who are not government funded, who are actually dependent on the feesthat they are generating from these assessments?

Mrs Weaver—I do not think I am able to answer that question. I think that would be adifficult question to respond to.



Senator CARR—What I am putting to you is: is there a need in any assessment processfor there to be a genuine independence from the client, in terms of the assessment handout?How do you overcome the question of the apparent conflict of interest that exists?

Mrs Weaver—I think that is a real difficulty in this area because I doubt that in anytendering process there would be a possibility of getting sufficient numbers of RTOs with skillsin particular areas who are not involved in the provision of training as well. I think it is goingto be a real problem.

Senator CARR—My colleague Senator Collins raised the issue of migration agents. Asmembers of parliament, we are constantly faced with the conflicts that arise among peoplecoming to us seeking assistance as migrants, who have been burnt by migration agents andcrooked lawyers and everyone else who wants to get their hand into people’s pockets, whoare in desperate need and are incredibly vulnerable. The question arises: is this yet anotheropportunity for the immoral and the unethical to exploit vulnerable people, because it isoperating in a deregulated environment where people do not seem to have recourse?

Ms Hannan—There is always an issue of concern when a process does not have enoughmechanisms in it to be transparent. It is my personal view of tendering out of services thatperhaps, because of the pure contractual relationships of tendering, service does not have tobe as transparent as it could be. So it then prevents different accountability mechanisms beingput in place and also accountability from the broader public. It is hard for a tendered service—for the Migrant Resource Centre or another service—to advocate on behalf of clients and say,‘Well, what is happening? What is the cost?’ You know many government departments havedone things by submission for services for a period of time to ensure it is a transparent service.That may be a better way to go.

Mrs Weaver—We have also included in our submission that, if RTOs were to be involved,that is why we would like them to come under the NOOSR umbrella with a core group ofTRA staff who would then also be informed by a consultative committee which wouldcomprise of DIMA, the industry groups, and community representatives. Those communityrepresentatives are going to be important because they are the ones who are going to be ableto report on individual instances where clients have had difficulties. I think unions should beinvolved as well.

Ms Hannan—I suppose they would direct you to the National Integrated Settlement Strategybecause in that they have the government departments and also community representatives.It is the way they monitor on the ground what is happening.

Senator CARR—So you see the role of the state in this regard as that of a gatekeeper toprotect the integrity and equality arrangements? Is that the sort of position that you are puttingto this committee?

Ms Hannan—Yes.

Senator CARR—Finally, I have come across instances of registered training organisations—that were in the English language area in the past and short-term English language courses—moving into the vocational education and training area. Is it your experience that there is adifference in the length of time for which an applicant can secure a visa if they are attendingan ELICOS college—under CRICOS—for an English language course than for those studentswho are attending a college or registered training organisation under a VET scheme?

Mrs Weaver—That is outside the scope of my experience.



Senator CARR—I put it to you that it has been put to me that there have been a numberof colleges operating as visa scam operations. We have had a case here recently in Melbournewhere a college that had gone belly up discovered that students who had come into the collegefrom overseas under a registered training organisation arrangement had been enrolled in anMBA. We have a similar situation in New South Wales—in Sydney—where it looks like about400 students have gone missing. Do you think there is another area here in which registeredtraining organisations may be able to attract people from overseas through crooked agents,with a view to securing trade recognition, yet have no intentions of fulfilling any obligationsto that trade or in fact are using it as another device for visa scamming? Do you think thereis any potential for that?

Ms Hannan—I think there is always that potential problem, and that is why we are sayingthat it is about individual cases and about policy reform, but it needs to be set within aframework. If you have some sort of policy framework driving it that connects the differentsections together and you have accountability mechanisms built into that framework, youovercome some of those problems. There are always going to be those problems, but the moretransparent it is the less likely you will have those problems.

Mrs Weaver—That is why we have also suggested all of those tiers of responsibility—NOOSR, TRA, the community groups, unions and industry involvement in consultativecommittees as well.

Senator CARR—I appreciate the point you are making, but I cannot see any of what youhave proposed in the current legislation. Are you saying that the current bill should be passedor should be heavily amended or, if not heavily amended, should be rejected? What is yourrecommendation to the committee?

Mrs Weaver—If the barriers that our clients currently face could be addressed under thecurrent structure with minor changes to TRA, we would prefer that model to continue. If,however, the barriers that our clients face cannot be addressed, then we are looking for a waythat there may be a possibility, and we saw NOOSR as the only way—if changes cannot bemade to the TRA structure—to address the barriers that our clients face. We feel that theseare real barriers for Australia in using the skills that have been developed overseas. AsAustralians we have to face the total retraining of many of these people and the subsequentcosts in terms of supporting whole families simply because we do not allow them to utilisethe skills that they have.

Senator CARR—But the present bill as it stands is not one that you would readily supportwithout amendment?

Mrs Weaver—The bill as it stands has thrown up a number of barriers to our clients. Wesupport TRA because we believe that it is an organisation that has provided quality controlmechanisms and has won the support of all of the sectors, but it is the current structure withinTRA that has thrown up these barriers and the need for moving towards full fee recovery.

Senator CARR—Thank you very much.

Senator TCHEN—Your submission seems to focus on dealing with refugee-humanitarianmigrants. Is that correct?

Ms Hannan—We used that example this morning to highlight a cost argument, but thesubmission is based on all migrant populations, although the focus of our submission is notnecessarily the ‘unskilled’ category but the ‘skilled’ category.



Senator TCHEN—Do you find the same problem with the assessment of skilled migrantsin terms of their skills before they arrive, or is it less of a problem?

Mrs Weaver—It is less of a problem because in some instances skilled migrants are ableto fund the cost of their assessments or have employers who are able to do so for them.

Ms Hannan—But you need to also look at that within the context of how many skilledmigrants are actually taken compared to the other groups.

Senator TCHEN—You expressed some concern about what you called the privatisedassessors and whether they would be able to provide facilities which are sufficiently currentto do proper assessments.

Mrs Weaver—No, we were talking about training. That related to a different question. Ourconcerns in that area related to the cultural appropriateness of some forms of assessment andto the fact that there may be some conflict between RTOs that are both assessors and trainingorganisations.

Senator TCHEN—So it is not a matter of whether it is a privatised assessor or agovernment funded assessor but basically the attitude and knowledge of the assessor.

Ms Hannan—Our submission says that we are not actually getting into the privatisedargument necessarily. What we are saying is that you do not necessarily restructure a serviceif there are existing barriers within that service. But if a system is privatised and there is notas much transparency there is an inherent problem unless you actually build in mechanismsto overcome that.

Senator TCHEN—Supposing this transparency is built into the tendering process, wouldyou have a problem with that?

Mrs Weaver—No, providing there are those tiers of quality control that we have talkedabout. We feel that is extremely important in ensuring an equitable system.

Ms Hannan—My knowledge is not that great in this area, but I understand that the natureof the tendering system is that it is not. You can actually put in measured outcomes and anumber of mechanisms, but the community transparency of that, because of the nature of thecontract, cannot happen because of the tendering process.

Senator TCHEN—Looking at the framework proposed under the new legislation, do youfind the proposed framework satisfactory?

Mrs Weaver—There were a number of different proposals made, and the framework thatwe supported, with reservations, we would support providing those additional quality controlmechanisms are put in place.

ACTING CHAIR (Senator Carr) —Thank you very much for appearing here today. Weappreciate your attendance.



[10.02 a.m.]NEWTON, Mr Glenn, Managing Director, Australian Labour Market Services Pty Ltd

ACTING CHAIR —I welcome the representative from Australian Labour Market Services.The committee has before it submission No. 7. Are there any changes you wish to make toyour submission?

Mr Newton—I do have an additional, very brief submission which I will table for thecommittee.

ACTING CHAIR —Are there copies of that submission?Mr Newton—I have only one copy with me at the moment.ACTING CHAIR —Is it very long?Mr Newton—It is about two pages.ACTING CHAIR —We will ask the secretary to bring it up to the table so we can have

a look at it.Mr Newton—Basically, it elaborates on a number of issues that have already been addressed

in the original submission.ACTING CHAIR —Thank you, Mr Newton. The committee prefers all evidence to be given

in public, although the committee will consider any request for all or part of your evidenceto be given in camera. I point out that such evidence may subsequently be made public byorder of the Senate. I invite you to make a brief opening statement.

Mr Newton—I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to appear before it today.I have some brief additions to my submission which I have passed over to the committeesecretariat. I would like to make a brief opening statement to highlight three points.

The first point is that the issues the committee is considering go beyond the operation ofthe Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act. They have implications for the direction of Australia’sdomestic training system over the past decade and for the continuing operation of that trainingsystem. The Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act operates in respect of around 1,000 peopleper year in a limited number of occupational areas. Data from the National Centre forVocational Education Research puts the current number of participants in the domestic trainingsystem at 206,000.

The focus of this inquiry implies threshold weaknesses in the National Training Frameworkand it is appropriate for the committee to hear from a registered training organisation—in mycase an assessment only RTO—and one that has been established to specialise in assessingthe skills of migrants, although we also offer assessment services to all other individuals andto enterprises. The thrust of the submission put to you by Australian Labour Market Servicesis that the issues being considered by this inquiry do not arise from systemic problems in theNational Training Framework but relate to the need to ensure that the systemic arrangementsunder the Australian Recognition Framework are applied appropriately in assessing the skillsof migrants.

The second point relates to the scope of the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act and thecompetency of Trade Recognition Australia to assess trade skills. At least 40 per cent ofmigrants with trade skills have them in occupations other than the metal and electrical tradescovered by the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act and must have their skills assessed andrecognised under the Australian Recognition Framework after they arrive in Australia. It shouldalso be noted that, irrespective of whether or not the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act is



repealed, Australian residents, including migrants, with skills in the metal and electrical tradesas well as all other trades have the option of having their skills assessed and recognised byregistered training organisations under the Australian Recognition Framework.

In terms of the assessment guidelines of training packages, Trade Recognition Australia staffare qualified to undertake assessments in literally only a handful of trade classificationscompared to the 100 or so classifications on the skilled occupation list for general skilledmigration. To be balanced, I should also note that that handful of classifications does accountfor probably 30 per cent of prospective skilled migrants.

Trade Recognition Australia is unable to issue a qualification under the AustralianRecognition Framework. In addition, Trade Recognition Australia can only issue or not issuea certificate, whereas arrangements under the Australian Recognition Framework provide forissuing statements of attainment that certify competencies that are held although are notsufficient for a full qualification. Statements of attainment issued under the ARF assist accessto further training to assess the skill gap and assist the finding of employment based on thoselimited skills where those skills are acceptable to employers.

The third point I make is probably the most relevant to this inquiry. That is that employersand unions have a legitimate interest in ensuring pre-migration assessment and assessment andrecognition of migrant skills in Australia are done accurately. They need to have confidencein the process and its outcomes.

Employers and unions have that legitimate claim to be involved in the process and they havea valuable contribution to make to assist registered training organisations do their job properly.Employers and unions already have the major input to the assessment process through theirroles in the industry training advisory bodies that develop the competency standards, theassessment guidelines and the qualification specifications on which the assessment processis based. They make the rules. Beyond that, employers and unions can have a furtherinvolvement through consultative relationships with registered training organisations throughtheir industry training advisory bodies. In this regard, Australian Labour Market Services hashad discussions with the three main trade related industry training advisory bodies, in themetal, electrical and construction areas, about consultative arrangements in undertaking migrantskills assessments. Each industry training advisory body has indicated an interest in pursuingsuch an arrangement.

A similar issue arises in respect of occupational licensing, especially in the electrical andplumbing areas. Australian Labour Market Services has had similar discussions with the peaknational consultative bodies in those areas which represent the state and territory occupationallicensing bodies, and with similar positive results about cooperation in the process. I wouldnow be happy to answer any questions committee members may have.

ACTING CHAIR —Thank you. I have read your submission, Mr Newton, and you clearlyhave a great deal of expertise in this area. I notice that you left the Australian Public Serviceon 1 April and established Australian Labour Market Services on 8 April, so I presume thatessentially what you are doing now through the Australian Labour Market Services is whatyou did while you were a public servant. Would that be a fair statement?

Mr Newton—Yes, that is a correct statement, except that I would probably add that I thinkI can do it better, more efficiently and more accurately.

ACTING CHAIR —You say here that your interest is declared, and I acknowledge that.I make the point here that I think it is all too infrequent in these processes that witnessesactually declare an interest in matters rather than just senators. I also note that effectively your



organisation would be one of the few operating in this area as assessment only providers. Isthat the case?

Mr Newton—That is correct. Going back to a question you asked of the previous witnesses,there are currently nine assessment only registered training organisations listed on the nationaltraining information service, which is maintained by the Australian National TrainingAuthority. Australian Labour Market Services is one of those nine and probably has the widestscope of registration amongst those bodies.

ACTING CHAIR —How long have these nine been operating?Mr Newton—I would guess that the oldest has probably been operating from the middle

to the later part of last year. But they would all have emerged out of other organisations whichhad a longer level of involvement in the VET sector.

ACTING CHAIR —As I understand your evidence, there are nine operating as assessmentonly registered training organisations and none of them would have any more than a year’sexperience. How many of them would have a year’s experience?

Mr Newton—I cannot speak on behalf of other registered training organisations but I didindicate that, while they may be registered as assessment only registered training organisationsfor that short period, they would have had a lineage, if I can use that term, of having derivedfrom individuals or organisations which have had a much longer involvement in the VETsector. They have not just come up overnight from people who had have no knowledge orexperience. In fact, the registration process which is managed by the state training authoritiesunder the Australian Recognition Framework basically requires a great deal of knowledge,experience and ability. It is not an easy process to get registered.

Senator CARR—Yes. We have considered this at length in other aspects of this committee’swork. No doubt you will be aware of my interest in this question. Might I suggest to you thatof the 4,400 registered training organisations in this country many have given automaticrecognition registration. Are you aware of that?

Mr Newton—They rolled over from the previous system where they had gone throughprevious processes to be accredited under that system, and the majority are TAFE colleges.

Senator CARR—I am not quite certain that is the case anymore. There are 84 TAFEinstitutes in this country and there are 4,000 registered training organisations.

Mr Newton—I think you will find that most individual campuses of the—Senator CARR—Are individually registered, yes. But, still, 4,000 is a substantial number

of registered training organisations, of which you are saying nine are assessment only and noneof them have been operating much beyond a year. In terms of how we would assess theperformance, is it not a little short a period for the committee to make a fair assessment oftheir performance given those facts?

Mr Newton—I think it comes back to the point I made in my opening statement, Senator.We are talking about an assessment market in Australia of around 1,000 people a year. Wehave a domestic training system of 206,000 people currently in training. That domestic trainingsystem is operating on the premise of the ARF. If we are accepting that the operation of theARF is good enough for the domestic training system of 206,000 people, it is good enoughfor the assessment of 1,000 people.

Senator CARR—Sure. As you know, I raised some concerns about the integrity of ourcurrent training system and the quality controls that are built within it. I want to come to thatin a minute because I am sure you would have a great deal of experience to be able to assure



me on those questions. In relation to these paper based assessments, could you indicate to mehow many competencies are required to be assessed in an average metal based trade?

Mr Newton—I am not sure of the question. Let me answer it in two ways. There are inexcess of 300 units of competency in the metals and engineering training package. To achievea qualification, an applicant has to achieve 96 points. Each unit of competency is weightedwith a number of points from two through to about eight. So the number of individual unitsthat are required to achieve the 96 points varies depending on the units that are involved. Ifa person puts together a number of units that are weighted with six or eight points, theyobviously need fewer units than units that are weighted as two and four.

Senator CARR—My friends in the metal trades tell me that it is about 35 key competenciesfor the average trade qualification. Is that about right?

Mr Newton—That sounds far too many.Senator CARR—Far too many? We will talk with them later on, and perhaps I have my

figures incorrect. I am told that of that there are criteria attached to each of those competencieswhich, on average, is about four. Would that be right?

Mr Newton—We might just revise the structure of a unit of competency. You have a unitof competency which is broken up into elements of competency. Each element has a numberof performance criteria attached to it. One of the prime tenets of assessment is not to take whatwe call an atomistic approach and look at each individual performance criteria and eachindividual element; we take a holistic approach where, at the lowest level, you are reallyassessing at the unit of competency level.

Senator CARR—Yes, that is right. If we look at the unit of competency level on the basisof, say, four criteria over 35 competencies, that is about 140 levels of documentation I wouldhave thought would be required under this paper based assessment. Would that be a fairconclusion to draw?

Mr Newton—No.Senator CARR—Why not?Mr Newton—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 upby information on the nature and content of that training. There could also be statements froma number of employers describing in great detail the nature, content, context and so forth ofthe work undertaken. You might have somewhere between two to half a dozen, or a few more,items of evidence which might run between one to two pages and 20 pages, depending on theindividual circumstance.

One item of evidence would probably provide you with an indication of how a person ratesagainst quite a few units of competency. So you are not sitting down, taking an atomisticapproach and going through unit by unit, element by element or performance criterion byperformance criterion and expecting a separate item of evidence. You are looking at the totalbody of evidence, assessing that evidence against the units of competency in a holistic mannerand making an appropriate judgment on the basis of that.

Senator CARR—At what point is there any assessment of the actual skills held?Mr Newton—That process is an assessment of the actual skills held. If you are taking the

approach that you can assess a person’s skills only by physically observing them physicallyperforming the function, I would suggest, with all respect, that you perhaps do not have acomplete understanding of the assessment process.



Senator CARR—You would not be the first to suggest to me that I do not have a completeunderstanding of it. I am trying to come to grips with the nature of this paper based process.Evidence has come to us in regard to a range of other registered training providers. Forinstance, if you take the material that came out of the Dr Smith’s studies in Queensland ofthe operations of some registered training organisations, he points out that there is a very poorstandard of on-the-job training, in particular, collusion between registered training organisationsand employers, falsification of documentation, and a very poor level of skills provided in termsof teaching. Given the existing problems, or the problems that appear to be emerging, howconfident can you be of this particular process?

Mr Newton—Fully confident, Senator. There are two issues. The first question is: is thatsystem and that framework adequate? And I think the answer in terms of the AustralianRecognition Framework is that it is adequate. The second question is: how is it applied byindividual organisations and how is it monitored by the state training authorities responsiblefor the monitoring? It really comes down not to a systemic issue but, really, to how individualorganisations operate under that system. That is the thrust of my submission.

Senator CARR—Because we have limited time today—and, obviously, I could talk withyou at length on these questions—I want to home in on this conflict of interest matter. Whodo you see as your main client? Is it the person seeking the trade recognition, or is it the largecompany that has asked you to assist with 10 migrants for its metal fabrication plant in aremote part of Australia because they are finding it difficult to replace staff? Who do you seeas the client?

Mr Newton—I guess there are a number of clients in that relationship. The first client isthe person who is paying you to undertake the assessment. But that contract—if I can describeit that way—between you and that person clearly indicates that that assessment is done on thebasis of the Australian Recognition Framework requirements, against the benchmarks oftraining packages, and will be an honest and frank assessment. So the clients are not payingfor an outcome; they are paying for a process. That is made very clear up-front in theapplication form, and in fact a declaration is signed to that effect.

There is also a second level of client, which is the state training authority who has registeredthe registered training organisation and who will audit that organisation. The registered trainingorganisation runs the risk of losing their registration, and hence their livelihood, as a resultof that audit process.

In the case of my organisation, I am scheduled to be audited by the Accreditation andRegistration Council in the Australian Capital Territory in December this year. I know I havean audit. They will go through my systems, my procedures and various arrangements of afinancial, administrative and assessment nature to ensure that what I am actually doing is whatI told them I would do as part of my assessment process. This here is my manual of financial,administrative and assessment procedures. My policy is dealing with things such as access andequity, privacy, risk management, human resources, physical resources, information technologyand management information systems. I will be assessed against those. That auditing processwill go into my records, examine cases that I have assessed to ensure the evidence that personprovided was assessed by an appropriately qualified assessor and that the outcome is justifiedby that evidence. It is quite a transparent process.

A client, for me, is also a body that registers me. I have to have regard for doing the rightthing by the applicant and do a fair, accurate assessment. I also have to do the correct thing



by the registering body, and indeed for myself, and ensure that I am doing the job properly,because I do not want to lose my registration.

ACTING CHAIR —Thank you, Mr Newton. That sounds terrific in theory—the wholescheme is great. We have a very strong rhetoric to support the new arrangements. As Dr Smithin Queensland found, and I quote:There was almost universal agreement among those interviewed that many "graduate" trainees, particularlythose who have done their training fully on-the-job, do not hold the competencies with which they havebeen credited: that is, that assessment is either frequently being poorly conducted or that certain providersare deliberately misreporting trainee knowledge and skills to ensure a "competent" result.

If that is occurring in Queensland—

Mr Newton—I am unable to comment one way or another on that report; I have not readit. I really do not know the methodology that was the used or the sample of organisations andindividuals that were examined. I do not know the circumstances that applied, and I certainlydo not know what action the relevant Queensland authorities may or may not be taking inrespect of these organisations.

ACTING CHAIR —Thank you very much, Mr Newton. I know that other senators haveother questions.

Senator TCHEN—Mr Newton, earlier you remarked that you were formerly a public servantand that you are now still doing the same sort of job but more efficiently. Can you elaborateon that?

Mr Newton—I have nine years experience in skills assessment. Prior to that I had 10 yearsexperience in vocational education and training policy matters, I have worked overseas as aconsultant to the International Labour Organisation on a number of occasions, developingtraining programs of a competency based nature, training trainers who will deliver thoseprograms and evaluate training systems. That expertise and experience allows me to identifya number of structural and assessment approaches, which I believe my organisation, throughits procedures, is able to apply more efficiently, in a more cost-effective way, more accuratelyand more fairly than could the organisation that I left through the arrangements it had in place.

One of the reasons I am able to achieve that is that I am operating under the AustralianRecognition Framework using training packages which provide a far better tool for assessmentthan the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act does. With all respect to the bureaucracy, it iseasier to put in place improvements when you are operating in a private capacity—albeit undera very strict regulatory regime administered by the, say, training authorities—than it often isin a bureaucratic framework, for a whole variety of reasons.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr Newton, on page 8 of your submission, you refer tothe issue of integrity and the advantages of an organisation that offers assessment onlyservices. Can you clarify whether you are promoting that as a solution to the integritysituation?

Mr Newton—I do not think there is any absolute solution to any issue, but I will come backto some of the issues that Senator Carr raised, which I think are quite legitimate. In anyendeavour, there are often conflicts of interest. If you are a registered training organisationthat delivers training, whether you are a state and territory government TAFE or whether youare a private provider, when you are assessing somebody, there is that question of: are yougoing to assess them and issue a full qualification, for which you make far less money, or areyou, because you believe it or otherwise, going to accredit them with only a certain number



of competencies and identify a skill gap which you will then be able to meet by providingtraining?

I think if you were to look at the RPL processes undertaken by any public TAFE institutionin this country, you would find very few assessments result in a full qualification. That is dueto a range of factors, including the way TAFEs are funded. There is always that issue. If youare an assessment only registered training organisation, you have no interest—if I can use itin that sense—in whether you give a person a full qualification or not. If you give them astatement of attainment and identify a skill gap, you do not benefit by then selling them thetraining to fill that skill gap. What you do is a frank and accurate assessment. You identifythe competencies they have, then perhaps provide them with advice on where they can go toget the skill gap fixed by somebody else.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Perhaps I can cut you short there. I appreciate theargument, but I am asking: in the context of this committee, addressing the system as a wholethat we are looking at moving towards, are you advocating that as a potential solution toconcerns about integrity within the system?

Mr Newton—As I said at the beginning, not entirely. Other areas of integrity are the scopefor an RTO to take a hard approach to assessment and to generate review business so that aperson lodges a review application and the RTO makes more money. On the other hand, thereis a danger that an RTO could take an easy approach to assessment so that, in a marketsituation, they will attract more business. Those risks exist. The countermeasures to those risksare twofold. Firstly, in the domestic situation, it is the registration and auditing processes putin place by the state training authorities which will weed out those unscrupulous operators.In the context of pre-migration assessment, you have a second level of quality assurance andauditing put in place proposed in the tender by the National Office of Overseas SkillsRecognition, which has another layer of monitoring and auditing.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Yes, one of the problems we are grappling with at themoment—certainly until we speak to the department on the basis of their submission so far—isexactly what you have said here. Page 8 says:The supervisory role of the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition inherent in the current tenderarrangements . . .

Really, all we have before us is what is inherent in the current tender arrangements. How muchreassurance does that give us about a supervisory role and what charter there exists for one?

Mr Newton—I am not sure what the problem is with something being inherent.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —There is not a problem with it being inherent, but I amsaying that the information before this committee at the moment is scant in terms of preciselyhow the government proposes to deal with several of these issues. It is not in the bill. We areaddressing the bill and assuming various things on scant information provided at this stage.

Mr Newton—I think I see the problem. There are really two issues that I think are beingaddressed concurrently here, and it is useful to separate them. One is that the bill to repealthe Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act purely goes to the assessment of people who areAustralian residents. The intent of that repeal is that, rather than having a dual system ofassessment arrangements under the Australian Recognition Framework, on the one hand, andassessment arrangements under the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act, on the other—whichare not aligned, and this is probably wasteful of resources—the intention of the bill is that theARF is in place, and there is no need for the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act.



Senator JACINTA COLLINS —But we were also talking about building on top of thatsome new form of supervisory arrangement which is inherent in these tender arrangements.

Mr Newton—No, the supervisory arrangement is in the context of pre-migration assessment.That is the other issue. The Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act does not have any direct rolein the pre-migration assessment process. That is under the auspices of the Migration Act. Whathas been in place has been an administrative arrangement whereby the infrastructure of theTradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act has been used administratively to undertake pre-migrationassessments under the Migration Act. The tender that we have been talking about is only inrespect of pre-migration. Inherent in that tender is a very strict monitoring and auditingprocess—on top of the monitoring and auditing process of the ARF arrangements.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Where does the charter exist for that process to occur?Under the Migration Regulations?

Mr Newton—Yes.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —And it is there already?Mr Newton—I guess I am having trouble grasping what you are getting at. My

understanding—and this is probably better addressed by people from NOOSR and theDepartment of Immigration—is that the head of power for the pre-migration assessments isthe Migration Act but that the act itself does not prescribe the monitoring and auditingarrangements. They are being put in place through administrative action and are described insome detail in the request for tender document and were presumably addressed in some detailin tenders that were submitted. They were certainly addressed in great detail in my tender.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Of that administrative power, we have so far seen no detail.That is the difficulty that we are grappling with at the moment: the extent to which we aresatisfied—

Mr Newton—I will leave other people to address that.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Precisely. Senator Carr, you wanted to follow up a point

there.Senator CARR—Mr Newton, the proposition you are putting to us is that the private sector

can do this job better than the public sector can, and this question arises in terms of theconflict of interest that occurs because of the power that you will have as an RTO overapplicants seeking recognition of their qualifications—and, for that matter, the relationshipyou will have to ongoing corporations who want skilled workers to work in their enterprises.That is essentially the nature of the market operation. There is an ongoing economicrelationship.

Why, in your view, is that better than having a public servant do it who is not dependentupon economic relationships either with corporations or with individual clients paying feesto them? Why wouldn’t that system work more ethically and with greater precision to theprinciples of independent natural justice if the person were not paid by the state and were notdependent upon those economic relationships?

Mr Newton—First of all, my comments about the private sector being able to do it betterpurely went to questions of efficiency and accuracy, based on the fact that the AustralianRecognition Framework provides a better basis for that than the Tradesmen’s Rights RegulationAct does. The issue that you are now raising involves quite legitimate questions of ethics andrelated matters. I guess I would turn the question around and ask on what basis we are goingto assume that the private sector will always be less ethical than a public sector operation.



What it comes down to is the framework in which the system operates. We do not haveorganisations such as mine running around being a law unto ourselves: we are operating underthe Australian Recognition Framework under supervision by the state training authorities thatregister us. As I say, I am scheduled for an audit in December this year and I will then bescheduled for another audit in the middle of next year. Any unethical behaviour on my partof the type that you are talking about will be unearthed in those audits, and the sanctions willbe applied at that point. What will keep me honest—apart from any questions of personalintegrity and professionalism—is the threat that somebody will be looking very closely at whatI am doing and will have the power to stop me from doing it.

CHAIR —Mr Newton, you indicated in reply to Senator Collins that you felt that we hadreached a particular stage in Australia where it was timely to repeal the Tradesmen’s RightsRegulation Act, because of the way in which training frameworks had developed in recentyears. Could you elaborate and focus on the point of why it is now timely to repeal this bill,given the broad training arrangements that currently exist in Australia?

Mr Newton—To answer that question I would probably have to step out of my immediaterole as the manager of a registered training organisation.

CHAIR —I was really relying on your nine or 10 years experience in the field and what youhave seen happening over the past 10 years.

Mr Newton—Yes; that is what I was alluding to. We have had in place for most of thiscentury eight separate training systems administered by state and territory training authorities.There have been a large number of similarities but also a large number of divergences in theway those training systems have operated, including the extent to which those training systemshave incorporated assessment arrangements. For example, there were no assessmentarrangements under state training authorities in South Australia, and the arrangements in theACT, Western Australia and the Northern Territory were extremely limited. The arrangementsthat operated in the other states varied somewhat in terms of the criteria and the processesinvolved.

The training reform agenda which Commonwealth and state governments have been pursuingover the past decade has been bringing about a convergence in state training arrangements.They have basically been brought together through the Australian Recognition Framework,which provides a common approach throughout the country, including in the provision ofassessment arrangements and the basis for those assessment arrangements. Training packagesprovide a common approach, in all occupations and in all states and territories, to assessment.

Part of the historical rationale for the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act was that, in thathistorical context of fragmented and different approaches to assessment through the statetraining arrangements, you had a Commonwealth umbrella which provided a national, uniformapproach. But it only operated in the metals and electrical trades and not in the others. Wenow have the situation where the Australian Recognition Framework provides that nationaluniformity across all trades—which basically, to my mind, takes away the rationale for thecontinuation of the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act.

CHAIR —Senator Carr made a number of wild assertions—

Senator CARR—What wild assertions did I make?

CHAIR —on standards in a variety of areas. Perhaps you would like to respond to any ofthose or give us some historical perspective on how you see standards going in this area andwhether they are improving over time. Senator Carr seems to indicate that they are not.



Mr Newton—In terms of standards of performance of organisations?CHAIR —That, and also in terms of the way in which training systems and the assessment

of them have been developing over time.Mr Newton—I am not sure there is anything I would add to what I have already said.

Basically, the historical development has been that fragmented and less than objective systemshave been replaced by nationally uniform and more objective systems, through theimplementation of the Australian Recognition Framework and training packages.

One comment I would make is that Senator Carr brought up some legitimate concerns aboutthe operation of English language courses over the earlier part of this decade. That is acompletely separate issue and a completely separate set of arrangements from those we aretalking about under the Australian Recognition Framework. I do think that the lessons learntfrom those earlier difficulties in the English language training area probably have informedthe greater level of safeguard and integrity in the ARF and have perhaps informed the rigourof the request for tender that goes to the proposed pre-migration arrangements.

CHAIR —Thank you for appearing today, Mr Newton.Proceedings suspended from 10.43 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.



GLYNN, Mr Peter James, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, National Electrical andCommunications AssociationROE, Mr Julius, Acting National President, Australian Manufacturing Workers UnionTIGHE, Mr Peter Anthony, National Secretary, Communication, Electrical and PlumbingUnion

CHAIR —I welcome the representatives of the Communication, Electrical and PlumbingUnion, the National Electrical and Communications Association and the AustralianManufacturing Workers Union. Do you have anything to add about the capacity in which youappear today?

Mr Tighe —The capacity of our submission is the major representative of employeesinvolved in the electrical and communication trades within Australia.

Mr Glynn —Our industry is the major employer of skilled electrical workers in this country.Mr Roe—The capacity in which we make our representations is firstly that our organisation

is the main union representing fitters, other mechanical tradespeople and employees in anumber of other trade areas, including printing trades. Also, our organisation has an activeinterest in an involvement in the National Training Framework and its implementation.

CHAIR —The committee has before it submissions Nos 1 and 6. Are there any changes youwish to make to those submissions?

Mr Roe—No.CHAIR —The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, but if at any time you

wish to give any evidence, part of evidence or answers to any questions in camera you maymake a request and the committee will consider the request; however, such evidence maysubsequently be made public by order of the Senate. I invite you now to make a brief openingstatement—and could I emphasise the ‘brief’, because senators want time for questions, andwe are now running about 15 minutes late.

Mr Tighe —The National Electrical and Communications Association and the Communica-tion, Electrical and Plumbing Union put a joint submission to the Senate committee. That issubmission No. 6. We do not wish to add to that submission but, at the outset, can I say thatboth NECA and the CEPU have had a long involvement in skill formation in our sector andwith the industry committees which were made up under the Tradesmen’s Rights RegulationAct, the current act that is being considered for repeal. Represented at not only a central tradeslevel but also a local trades level, our concern is that the ultimate consumer for skilled labourin Australia is industry, and industry is made up of the two components of the employees andthe employer, so it is very critical for us to ensure that whatever is put in place—if the actis repealed—meets the needs of industry.

In our view, what is projected to replace the current regime does not give us any confidenceat all. We believe the capacity for industry to monitor, oversee and ensure an equitableoutcome has been removed. The new system proposed under the National Training Frameworkusing RTOs to undertake that assessment against training packages is very much a new system.In fact, training packages for the electrical and communication trades are only now passingthrough the endorsement process, and no RTOs in Australia have had any experience inassessing against those packages. To change the system to a portfolio based system ofassessment in relation to overseas skilled applicants, in our view, is quite problematic. We havetouched on those problems in our submission to you but, clearly, we see portfolio assessment—that is, paper based assessment—as only one part of an overall holistic assessment regime.



We have touched on those problems in our submission to you but, clearly, we see portfolioassessment—that is, paper based assessment—as only one part of an overall holistic assessmentregime. We believe that, in essence, to focus only on documentation—that is, if thatdocumentation can be provided, which is questionable—would erode the quality guarantee ofthe system as we see it. This has impacting effects on occupational health and safety in oursector and licensing arrangements and it certainly impacts on the individual in relation to theprocesses for skills recognition and, we believe, impacts on some of the quality which has beeninherent in the previous system.

CHAIR —Thank you. Does anyone else want to make an opening statement?

Mr Roe—I would.

Mr Glynn —I would like to. The electrical contracting sector in this country employsapproximately 75 per cent of the skilled electrical workers. The skills and qualifications ofthe work force are essential for being able to work in this country, for the obvious reasonsof safety and also, as Peter Tighe suggested, to meet the licensing prerequisites. The skilledmigration process has been an essential part of our labour market programming, with thedemand for skilled labour in this country exceeding the supply from locally produced skilledworkers in every year at least for the last 15 years. The tradesmen’s rights and recognitionprocess has been very important to us in ensuring that the skilled workers that come fromoverseas meet the minimum requirements of the industry in this country and also those of theregulator for the occupational health and safety obligations.

In respect of the proposals that are suggested by the government, whilst we are keen toconsider any constructive change, we have concerns that the proposals are premature at best.The competency based assessment model is not even agreed within the industry let alonewithin the government at this stage, so it is not trialled. It is therefore certainly not fail-safeand, if it results in an interruption to the ongoing supply of skilled labour to this sector, thenit clearly will have a major impact on the labour market requirements for us.

Mr Roe—There are just a couple of points that I would like to raise, arising from thesubmission. Firstly, there is the way we see the process that has led to this committee. Therewas an inquiry to which all the people sitting before you at the moment made submissions.That inquiry, for better or for worse, came to a conclusion that that current system should bereplaced by a system which was based on the National Training Framework and utilisedregistered training organisations. It is our submission that, having reached that conclusion, thenext step—of properly examining, in consultation with the key industry parties affected, whatare the most appropriate processes and transitional arrangements to ensure that thatfundamental change in the system could be properly implemented—was not undertaken and,we believe, is still required to be undertaken.

If you accept the principle of the change to utilising the National Training Framework andregistered training organisations, you have to recognise that that framework is in many waysmore demanding and more rigorous than the system that existed previously. To meet therequirements of the National Training Framework—that is, to be assessed on a competencybasis in respect of each individual competency unit against a series of criteria, and to integrateboth knowledge requirements and practical demonstration of skill and knowledge—is a muchmore onerous requirement in many ways than the previous system. To develop and put in placemechanisms to meet those more onerous requirements would clearly take a degree of time anda degree of investigation. In our submission, that has not adequately occurred.



I will just illustrate that point. The basis of ensuring whether registered training organisationsmeet the requirements for the National Training Framework is set out not only in a series ofstandards or criteria that registered training organisations need to meet for registration but alsoin an audit and registration process that is supposed to occur with respect to those criteria. Todate, because the system is so new, there has not been a great deal of activity in terms ofauditing of registered training organisations. When we have inquired of the various states asto what processes and procedures they will be using to ensure that registered trainingorganisations actually meet the criteria, the answers to this stage have been fairly inconsistent.The processes that are being proposed are mostly paper based; that is, they are looking at theprocesses used rather than whether the actual outcomes in terms of achievement ofcompetencies have been met.

To the credit of the states and the Commonwealth—under the coordination of ANTA andthe National Training Framework Committee, of which I am a member—they are looking attrying to review and improve those systems, but it is early days and we believe that theprocesses are not adequately trialled and that there needs to be an industry led process toproperly develop the transitional arrangements to the new system.

Senator CARR—Mr Roe, you have been at the forefront of reform within the vocationaleducation and training system in the country. Your participation in the National TrainingFramework Committee and various others that I am aware of has been longstanding. I thinkthe committee would have to acknowledge that your expertise in this area is quite widespread.Are you saying that while the present arrangements are very good in theory they have yet tobe measured in practice? Is that the thrust of what you are saying?

Mr Roe—Yes, I think the new arrangements proposed can produce a world-class system.There is absolutely no question about that. But there are a number of aspects of the systemon which these proposed changes to tradesmen’s rights recognition are dependent: the auditof registered training organisations, the role of assessment only registered training organisationsand the assessment process against training packages. Those three things are critical to theprocess of the replacement to the current arrangements for tradesmen’s rights recognition.Those three things are not yet well developed and have not been tested in practice.

Senator CARR—So, in your judgment, the three matters that you have referred to in yoursubmission—qualifications, the assessment process and the integrity of those processes, andthe audit arrangements—obviously need further work. The Senate estimates committee hasbeen considering some of these questions, and I am sure you will be aware that I have beenpursuing some matters. I am particularly concerned with the way in which the performanceof registered training organisations has been assessed by the National Training FrameworkCommittee and others within ANTA.

I note, for instance, that in the case of South Australia, where all the registered trainingorganisations were automatically rolled over, an audit was conducted just this year, as I recall,and the external auditors found that 90 per cent of the registered training organisations thatwere in fact audited did not meet the requirements of the National Training Framework. Iunderstand that in the case of Victoria, where there was an audit of 172, 109 required follow-up orders. This suggests to me that there are considerable grounds for concern about thequality of our registered training organisations if those figures are any indication. What doyou say to that, Mr Roe? Is that a matter of concern to you?

Mr Roe—I have two concerns. Firstly, I think the actual audit process itself needs furtherdevelopment. As I have said, I am pleased to say that the states have recognised the need for



further discussion and development of that audit process. We believe more emphasis shouldbe put on the outcomes that are being achieved by the registered training organisations—thatis, whether people are getting qualifications that meet the requirements of the trainingpackage—rather than putting so much emphasis on the processes that the registered trainingorganisations use. That is one area of concern.

Secondly, I think it is absolutely understandable that there has been a situation whereregistered training organisations have previously focused on delivering in the classroom—thatis, delivering largely the knowledge components and leaving to the employer, through atimeserved system, the acquisition of the relevant capacity to apply that knowledge. Underthe new system, the registered training organisation has to take responsibility for the integratedprocess, and most registered training organisations have limited experience in doing so. It ishardly surprising that it will take some time before registered training organisations will beable to meet those requirements. This is of particular relevance when one is looking at tradesrecognition and, in particular, recognition of people who are overseas and their skills.

Senator CARR—We have heard that there are nine assessment only registered trainingorganisations operating.

Mr Roe—At the present time.

Senator CARR—None of them for more than a year.

Mr Roe—Yes.

Senator CARR—Is that a matter of concern to you?

Mr Roe—I am delighted that there are only nine at the present time because, quite frankly,I think the area of assessment only organisations is the area with the greatest capacity forquality problems. You could set up an assessment only registered training organisation withoutany of the high capital costs involved in setting up a registered training organisation thatprovides the full range of training and assessment. You do not have to be an assessment onlyregistered organisation. You do not have to have large amounts of bricks and mortar, becauseyou are not actually providing or delivering training.

The barriers to people entering that market are fairly small. Therefore, one would think thatthe requirements for quality assurance should be that much higher. We are actually quiterelieved that there has not been an explosion and proliferation of assessment onlyorganisations. The small number at the present time illustrates just what early days it is withrespect to assessment only registered training organisations, how little track record there isin this area and why we believe with respect to trades recognition that there needs to beindustry involvement in examining transitional processes before full implementation of thenew system.

Senator CARR—Mr Tighe, you have indicated that we are still in the preliminary stagesof developing of the competencies for electricians and other trades. It has been put to me thatthere are about 35 units of competencies in the metal trades apprenticeship. How many arethere in the electrical trades?

Mr Tighe —The make-up of the competencies is different in the electrical trades; a differentsystem is used in the metal and engineering area vis-a-vis the electrical area. There are sevencore competencies, but they are quite expansive competencies. The seven core competenciesrequired by an electrical trades group will go to all facets of the old electrical trade. One, forexample, is the installation of cable, but it requires all types of cable—facets, terminationtypes. The metals standards, which are more in number, are probably more easily constructed



to meet the flexibility of that industry. In relation to the development of training packages forthe electrical area, those packages are currently before the National Training FrameworkCommittee for full endorsement and will not be implemented until the teaching yearcommences next year.

Senator CARR—Mr Roe, you have had more experience with the metal tradescompetencies. How many are required for the average apprentice in the metal trades?

Mr Roe—Obviously it varies, depending on the particular combinations that are chosen.But between 30 and 35 would be the average number of units for a trade certificate, and eachof those units has a number of performance criteria. Each unit would have at least fourperformance criteria. Some units would have up to a dozen performance criteria.

Senator CARR—In regard to an arrangement of, say, 35 units, each with four criteria whichwould require some sort of support documentation under this scheme, would it be reasonabletherefore to require something like 140, or thereabouts, pieces of documentation to demonstratecompetencies in those key performance areas?

Mr Roe—The answer to the question is, yes. That would probably be somewhatconservative. I think one has to realise a fundamental point on this question: if you are aregistered training organisation doing that assessment of an overseas person, what you areactually doing at the end of the day, if you are saying that that person is competent—that is,that their documentation satisfies you that they are equivalent to someone with an Australiantrade qualification—is issuing a qualification to that person on the basis of that documentaryevidence. I do not see any halfway house here. The registered training organisation is not beingasked whether it is likely that this person is 80 per cent equivalent. The registered trainingorganisation is being asked, ‘Are they or are they not equivalent?’ If the registered trainingorganisation says that they are equivalent, then it is effectively issuing a qualification whichmust be recognised by every registered training organisation in this country.

Senator CARR—Mr Tighe and Mr Glynn, are similar sorts of patterns likely to emerge inyour industry? Obviously there are differences between the metal industry and the electricalindustry, but are similar sorts of levels of documentation likely to be required?

Mr Tighe —Very much the same. Whilst there are a different number of competencies, thebreadth of trade skills in the mechanical area and in the electrical and communications areais reasonably identical. Documentation to support those skills would be quite horrendous. Forsomeone from overseas seeking recognition, you would need to have full detail, for instance,of the technical curriculum they undertook during their training. That would break down thevarious technical skills they gained during that period of time. You would also need to havea full record of the type of equipment they worked on, to what level they worked on it andwhat competency they achieved on that equipment. That sort of documentation, in myexperience—and I have had a reasonably wide experience—is not available overseas. So itwould be problematic for the applicant, in the first instance, to provide the sort ofdocumentation that an RTO would need to do a competent assessment.

Senator CARR—Mr Glynn, what do you think, from a contractor’s point of view? Arethose sorts of estimates matters that you would agree with?

Mr Glynn —Yes.

Senator CARR—How practical are they, in your opinion? How effective is that means ofassessment—this paper based audit system?



Mr Glynn —I agree with everything Mr Tighe has said. The volume of the documentationis going to be such that the paper based assessment is unlikely to be sufficiently comprehensiveto be conclusive.

Senator CARR—What do you say about the question of integrity when it comes to theproduction of documents from overseas about the detail that is required to demonstratecompetency? How satisfied are you that it is possible to ensure the integrity of thatdocumentation?

Mr Glynn —The integrity of the documentation is a problem under the current system. Itis only the work that has been done by the overseas missions that has been able to establishthe controls at the local level to ensure the veracity of the source documentation. To do it fromthis side would probably be virtually impossible.

Senator CARR—I think Mr Roe has made the point that much of this scheme appears, atface value, to be a strengthening of a quality assurance. Surely, you would all welcome ahigher level of quality assurance, particularly given these matters go to the fundamental issuesof public safety. On the other hand, if the audit arrangements are not sufficiently robust toensure that these claims are met in practice, is it not possible that we will see a reduction inthe level of the quality required? Does that not have an implication for the unions, whoparticularly have an interest in this matter with regard to the price of labour that flows fromthese issues? Is it not the case that employers have, at the moment, the opportunity toencourage the development of training domestically or to draw upon overseas reserves oflabour? Does it not have an impact on the price of labour if there is an influx of people fromoverseas? Are you concerned about those issues?

Mr Glynn —Certainly, we are concerned about the issues. I have to say that the principleof the proposed change does not concern our organisation a great deal. We agree with theproposals of the training reform agenda by this government and the previous government andbelieve that the outcomes you are potentially going to deliver make a far more flexible,comprehensive and fail-safe system. Our concern at this time, though, is that the system isnot a sufficiently well-defined, developed trial to be able to do that. The early results are thatthere will be trial and error in all industries before the system beds down to deliver at itspotential.

Our concern is that, in our case, the areas can be particularly expensive, particularly whenyou are dealing with overseas people. If the people do not have the qualifications and cannotachieve the licences, they cannot work. There is no place for them. Then, as you say, thedemand for labour substantially exceeds supply. It is not just a price issue. It means that weare then forced to consider alternatives to the minimum levels of training and quality oftraining that we have in place at the moment. Clearly, for us, they are minimum levels,otherwise we would have looked for alternatives. We have examined the alternatives, becauseour objective is to have the total labour market supply to the market in this country producedlocally. We cannot do it.

Senator TCHEN—Mr Tighe and Mr Glynn, in your submission you mentioned that thecurrent ARTC has a very high success rate—in the high 90s. How do you define the successrate? It does not mean that everyone who applies gets a certificate, does it?

Mr Tighe —No, the success rate is based on whether those who are granted ARTCcertificates can in fact work in the qualification that is nominated on that certificate andwhether they can work at that qualification successfully. Those people who have been throughthe overseas recognition system and have been given ARTCs have had a success rate in thehigh 90s percentile—somewhere around 97 per cent. That figure was put to us by the



Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Their happiness with the old system,in our view, raised the question as to why we were looking to reinvent the wheel.

Senator TCHEN—So the success rate that you refer to applies only to overseas applicants?It is not applied domestically?

Mr Tighe —Yes, that is true.

Senator TCHEN—Could it be possible that this high success rate is achieved throughsetting the threshold too high? In other words, anyone who does not achieve a 100 per centpass mark does not get a certificate. Therefore, you ensure that anyone who passes will besuccessful subsequently.

Mr Tighe —The current system is on the basis of looking at the training system of thecountry of origin of the applicant and benchmarking that system against the current Australiansystem. If you meet the benchmark within the country of origin, there is a grant of a certificate.There are criteria set for that country. That person would then be deemed to have beenequivalent to the Australian standard. The small percentile of slippage is when, in our view,the methods of assessment of the country of origin in granting a qualification have beenerroneous in some form.

The new system that is being considered, as has been stated, is in the introductory stage.It has not been tried and tested for Australian trainees. It is much easier to assess someoneonce they have entered the country because not only do you do a portfolio assessment againstthem but you can do what they call a ‘recognition of prior learning’ test. You actually get themto demonstrate their skills and knowledge through a practical challenge test. You cannot dothat against someone who may be thousands of kilometres away, so you have to strongly relyon the information base given by the documentation. The new system introduced into Australiawill work well for people who are domestically and residentially within the Australian trainingmarket. It is the people from overseas being assessed against a different system to the one thatthey have been trained in which we see as problematic.

Senator TCHEN—I take your point, but earlier we heard a submission from the NorthernMetropolitan Migrant Resource Centre, which takes perhaps more of the concern of thehumanitarians, migrants particularly, on the implied inequity of the current system. Basically,what you are saying is that, firstly, supposing that you assess against the current system, thesuccess rate implies that it is very hard for these people to get through in the first place. Butif you add on elements of onshore second-tier assessment, you are going to bring people intoAustralia under the misapprehension—on their own part, admittedly—that they will be fullyqualified to get a job in Australia and then to find that that qualification is not recognised ornot sufficient. Then there are other barriers for them to get themselves qualified. As I say, thereis very significant built-in inequity in the current system. Would you knowledge that?

Mr Tighe —I think it is actually the reverse. Under the current system, you have a situationwhere you may have a number of applicants. A percentage of those applicants areunsuccessful. They are unsuccessful because they have failed to meet the criteria establishedfor their own country of origin—that is, in their own country they would not be recognisedat a standard that we require in Australia.

Senator TCHEN—No, we are talking about a situation where a person is said to be fullyqualified in the country of origin.

Mr Tighe —If they are fully qualified against the criteria that have been established for theircountry, they will be issued with a certificate and be able to work successfully here. The



problem that I see—and that is why I said it was the reverse—is that, once you do a portfolioassessment against the person and you indicate to them that they will meet the criteria inAustralia and be able to work, when they come over here and practically apply their skills andfind that they do not meet them, there is a difficulty that they may have immigrated to acountry on the basis that they would have secure employment, say, in the electrical trades butin fact may not be able to gain employment. They have been given an indication that theywould have secure employment in this country when, in essence, they will not because theyhave not been assessed properly via a portfolio method.

Senator TCHEN—The evidence we received earlier was of the hardship met by people whoare qualified in their originating country but cannot get their qualifications recognised inAustralia, after arrival. That is as I understand the evidence we were given. Obviously, youare looking at it from a different point of view.

Mr Tighe —I have not had any reports of that. I have had some reports in areas that NOOSRcovers in relation to technical and professional occupations but certainly in the trade area itis quite concise, and the parameters for recognising trade skills are quite clear. It is notdifficult. In relation to someone applying under the current system, they have methods ofappeal. On occasions, they are required to produce further documentation to be measuredagainst their own country’s criteria, so there are number of mechanisms to get satisfaction outof the system.

Under the new system, one of the frustrations will be that they cannot provide theappropriate documentation for their portfolio to allow an assessment—albeit they might havemet the criteria in their own country and be recognised as a trades person there—by an RTOin Australia to measure them against the Australian system. In our submissions, we used thevernacular quotation ‘comparing apples to oranges’. People trained overseas are trained ona timeserved system. We have moved to a competency based system, which has a clear criteriaof assessment, which is different from the way people are trained and assessed overseas.

Senator TCHEN—Mr Roe, you mentioned your concern about the assessment only RT0.You said you are happy that there are only a few of them. My understanding is that youbelieve the assessment and training combined RTOs have a higher capital threshold so thatit is more likely you will get the more serious player in the game. Do I understand thatcorrectly?

Mr Roe—Yes. In the longer term we want to see more assessment only RTOs because thereare a lot of people within Australia who have skills and competencies that have not beenproperly recognised towards qualifications. Assessment only RTOs can help increase theaccessibility for citizens in Australia for credit towards qualifications. Obviously, we wouldlike to see more opportunities for assessment only registered training organisations but, becauseof the low initial barrier to entry to that market and the fact that the quality assurance measuresaround it have not been in our view properly tested and bedded down, we are quite happy thatthe take-up at this stage has been fairly low. In the longer term, when those quality assuranceprocedures are properly set down, obviously we will be happy to see more such organisations.

I have one comment on your previous question. The issue of the potential for unintendedand inequitable consequences for migrants is a very important. I think the concern about thenew system is that we do not know whether in the end it will be making it too easy or toohard. A lot of it very much depends upon the degree of integrity and rigour associated withhow the registered training organisations carry out their job. Let us say they have an eye tocommercial interests and that some large employer wants to bring out a significant group of



people—clients—from overseas and as a result they cut corners and make the process easy.There may be a concern then that the integrity of the qualification system in Australia is beingundermined because these people will get qualifications and will be getting entry into thecountry when they otherwise would not get entry.

On the other hand, the reverse could be true that because the need to demonstrate, througha portfolio, you meet all of the requirements for each individual competency and eachindividual performance criteria is very onerous, migrants—particularly those from countrieswhere the systems are significantly different from Australia, and I am talking here about non-English speaking countries—might find that that is a burden and that they have no chance ofcomplying with or meeting those requirements. But a great deal of unfairness could occur forpeople who have the competencies but are prevented from entry. Our view on that potentialfor inequity for potential applicants is that the problem with not having put enough work intothe transitional processes is that we do not know whether it will produce a fair and propersystem for those people.

Senator TCHEN—Do you accept that the intent of the legislation is to create greater equity?Mr Roe—I do not know whether the intent is to create better equity but I certainly believe

the intent of the legislation—that is, the intent of moving to a system based on register trainingorganisations and on the National Training Framework—is to have a system which has a highlevel of integrity. That is part of upgrading the system of qualifications and skills in thiscountry. I think that is the intent of the National Training Framework and a system based onregistered training organisations.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr Roe, you just covered in your final comments theresome of the issues I wanted to raise. I want to reinforce the earlier statement that the next stepelements of this process do not appear to have been addressed. Some of these issues I willflesh out further when we speak to the department today.

Chair, following the department’s submission, can we make that public to allow scope forothers to make additional comments, if it is felt necessary. The concern I have is that someof these implementation issues have not been fleshed out in the material before us, and thatMr Roe and others may well have additional comments they would like to add once thatmaterial is public.

CHAIR —They can put that in writing following the release of submissions.Senator CARR—All submissions are to be published, aren’t they? That is normal practice.CHAIR —I would assume we would be doing that forthwith, yes.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —That is simply my suggestion—that within the time frame

of us finalising reports we can allow scope for that. I note, in the review decision ofNovember, that the review committee identified a range of implementation and transition issueswhich need to be resolved before a firm time frame can be established for the cessation ofthe TRA’s current role in skills assessment for migration purposes and the commencementof operation of the government’s managing agent. To what extent do you understand the sortof implementation matters the government has dealt with so far? We have had somesubmissions where people are saying, ‘We support the model 4 proposal.’ Is it yourunderstanding that the government is adopting model 4? Are they setting up a broad basedconsultative committee? To what extent do you understand the implementations have beenaddressed to date?

Mr Roe—I do not know all of the detail and I am sure the department can provide that.But I do know that, between the time of the government making a decision to proceed with



the essential recommendation—that is, to repeal the act and move towards a system based onregistered training organisations—and to proceed to call for tenders, there wasn’t any time gapof significance at all, in my recollection. Therefore, there was no opportunity for the industryparties, who have been extensively involved in this system for 50 years, to be involved in thedevelopment of appropriate transitional and other processes for that to occur.

So the government made a decision about which way to proceed and then the governmentmoved to the tender process. A committee was established to provide some advice about thetender process, about the tender documentation. I was invited to be a part of that but the timeframe was extremely short in that process. So from my understanding the processes andsafeguards and so on, to the extent that they exist, are really contained in the tender document.I do not believe that does in any way adequately address our concerns about a properconsultative process to develop transitional processes to a new system which have someconfidence from the industry and, therefore, some integrity.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Let me just go through one example which I think fits thefirst of your concerns here in relation to migrant recognition. Fitting in with your commentsthat ‘it could be too easy or it could be too hard may be the problem that industry faces’, youcould have problems with industry having people come in too easily. Alternatively, you couldhave the problem that you cannot get people in at all because it is so difficult to satisfy therequirements. In regard to your first point, (a) ‘in particular the extent to which a paper basedapproach can be used where a competency based approach and work based learning has notbeen used overseas must be examined’, presumably an industry such as electrical, where youhave significant safety concerns, is quite concerned about how you deal with those work forceissues in the future when you do not know what process you input to say: ‘Hey, guys, wereally need to set aside these areas clearly as those areas where more than just the paper basedapproach is going to be required of people,’ and that industry as a whole will understand that.

Mr Tighe —Senator, can I comment on the point you make in relation to the electrical areaabout the satisfaction of the RTO in the assessment process. I am aware of one licensing board,the Queensland Electrical Workers Board, that has already adopted a policy of retesting peoplewho will come through this new system because they at the present time are sceptical of thequality in relation to its introduction. Their concern is that the old system was a tried and truesystem that had delivered four electrical licensing boards in relation to technical competencies.They are not sure. They have a different responsibility under the state legislation to ensurethat people hold those skills. They are going to exercise their mandate under that legislationto ensure further testing before they issue electrical licences. That gives us some concernsbecause it is basically a double hurdle that people will have to achieve to work as operativeelectrical tradespeople within at least one state, and that may be picked up by other states.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —That goes to point (a) about domestic recognition that MrRoe raises in his submission.

Mr Roe—In regard to point (a), under the National Training Framework and the AustralianRecognition Framework there is an understanding about how mutual recognition should work,but we are not satisfied that the states in this area will necessarily follow that and that in thisarea those processes are in place.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I conclude my questions but recommend that you havea look at the department’s submissions that we have before us and please add any additionalcomments in relation to their discussion to date about some of these issues.

CHAIR —I thank the witnesses for appearing.



[11.49 a.m.]

WALLACE, Mr Geoffrey James (Private capacity)CHAIR —I welcome Mr Geoff Wallace. The committee has before it submission No. 5. Are

there any changes you wish to make?

Mr Wallace—No.

CHAIR —The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public but should you wish atany time to give any evidence, part of evidence or answers to any questions in camera youmay make the request and the committee will consider the request. Such evidence maysubsequently be made public by order of the Senate. I invite you to make a brief openingstatement.

Mr Wallace—Chair and committee members, firstly, I would like to thank the committeefor giving me the opportunity to provide further information in support of my submission. Inmy opening statement I intend to offer several issues for your consideration. These issues arenot covered well in the submission I provided but are key elements of the proposed shift topaper based skills assessments for migration purposes.

The first issue for your consideration is the two major elements of an assessment process.These are knowledge and skills. I put it to the committee that for the assessment of knowledgesuch as in the professions assessed by NOOSR there are a number of appropriate paper basedassessment methodologies that provide an insight into the level of knowledge a person mayhave in a particular subject. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is where it comes toassessing skills. There is no doubt that the best method of assessing skills is to observe aperson performing a particular set of tasks, either on-the-job or at a trades test, and to judgethe observed performance against a recognised standard. The performance of a particular setof tasks typically demonstrates both skills and knowledge and the most important aspect ofthis is a person’s ability to articulate trade knowledge with a set of physical actions. The resultof these physical actions demonstrates the possession of skill.

Therefore, I am asking the committee not to be misled by those proposing anything to thecontrary or where skill has been confused with knowledge. Definitely skill is not knowledge.Skill is the result of knowledge combined with other personal attributes and abilities. A clearexample of this in a migrant trade skills context is where an academic or someone who hascram studied the Australian trade syllabus successfully migrates under the trade skills categoryafter obtaining sufficient knowledge to fool a typical paper based trade skills assessment. Whenit comes to rewiring a house, repairing the brakes on a bus or working on a scaffold such aperson would struggle to the point of self-harm or, even worse, the harm of others. Cases suchas this are proven and well documented from experiences in overseas technical interviews andat trade testing providers in Australia in a range of trade classifications.

It is clear, therefore, from this example that a paper based assessment system will need tobe extremely well engineered if it is to prevent such possibilities. A technical interview is thenext best thing to a trade test when assessing trade skills. A technical interview allows theperson being assessed an opportunity to describe actions and the performance of tasks to aperson who clearly understands what is required. I would like to put to the committee that thislevel of rigour is the minimum required.

However, by saying this I do not preclude the possibility of a paper based or electronicsystem being devised that might deliver similar results, especially in the electronic age we livein. I am sure that with some lateral thought and innovative minds working on a solution it



would not be long before an acceptable solution would be found. The implementation and laterevaluation and validation of such a system would be the most critical aspect of the shift toa paper based or electronic based trade skills assessment system.

The second issue I wish to address is the possibility of a workplace injury or accident beingcaused by a person not skilled to the required level or, worse still, the possibility of a laterincident resulting from work not properly completed or not completed to the required level.In this respect, I ask the committee not to be misled by those people who say that the systemwill assess everyone in the domestic sense once they arrive in Australia. This is absolutelynot the case. The possibility of a workplace accident occurring in the first week of a newlyarrived migrant entering the workplace is obviously high due to the lack of association withtools, equipment, work procedures, rules and the like. The problem is current and will onlybe heightened by a lowering of standards resulting from a move to an ineffective paper basedassessment system.

The third and final issue that I ask the committee to consider is the fact that the paper basedskills assessment system will discriminate against those who can least afford such unfairattention. In a number of developing nations it is acknowledged that there is a lack of reliableeducational infrastructure. In such places, a large number of apprenticeships are undertakenon the job and are generally informal. Age-old trades such as jeweller, stonemason, solidplasterer, tinsmith, coppersmith, builder, furniture maker and shipwright, to name a few, areall handed down from master to apprentice, to differing degrees, in an informal or on-the-jobsetting, and paperwork is almost never issued. The shift to a purely paper based system willrob Australia of these extremely talented and skilled people and will discriminate against themin a most unfair manner. I have seen no evidence to convince me that the proposed paperbased system deals with this problem in a meaningful way. This completes my openingstatement, and I invite your questions.

CHAIR —Thank you very much. It has been indicated that what you are proposing, if weadopted it on a widespread scale, would be a lot more costly than what is being proposed.Would you like to comment on that?

Mr Wallace—On what basis do you see it would be more costly?

CHAIR —I would assume that, due to your assessment processes, it would be more timeconsuming.

Mr Wallace—Let me put it this way: if something is worth doing properly, it is costed atthat proper level. The cost to industry, the cost to the public, the cost to the government, allthose costs, should be levelled at the appropriate level to make sure we achieve the appropriateoutcome. The cost is all relative as far as I am concerned, providing we get what we want forindustry—that is, trade level tradespeople readily employable who can hit the ground runningand do their job. The cost should be set at that level, whatever it be.

CHAIR —Could you comment on what has been happening in recent years with TradesRecognition Australia in terms of your workload or the proportion of assessments that youdo? Is this on the increase? Is it level? Has it decreased? What has happened over the last fewyears?

Mr Wallace—You have seen the work flow charts in the report. From reading thenewspapers, I know that the Commonwealth government has increased the number of skilledmigrants to enter Australia in the next how ever many years. That indicates to me that thework level will increase.



CHAIR —But what has happened from the last few years to this point in time?Mr Wallace—According to the documentation, it has been reducing.CHAIR —So what has caused that reduction over the last few years?Mr Wallace—There have been a number of issues that I can comment on. From sheer

observance, the occupations requiring English will have limited a lot of people from enteringAustralia. That has probably had a big impact. The demand in Australia for skilled peoplefluctuates. Even though there may be some lag between the demand and the supply, that wouldhave an impact on the people arriving. If people arrive and cannot get work, that filters backto the places where people come from and they will hold off coming to Australia until theyare sure of getting work. There are a number of issues in relation to that.

CHAIR —How compatible with the current directions in recognition of skills in Australiais the method in which you conduct assessment?

Mr Wallace—The main thing you have to understand with this is that the people who arecurrently doing the assessments have years of experience, and in that experience they haveclosely worked with migration people overseas and undertaken interviews of people that arethe product of a range of different educational infrastructures overseas at the trade level. Theway I see the skills assessment thing we do at the moment is that it is based on a lot of extantdata and knowledge and the paper based system as it works.

CHAIR —Is it true that you are not really currently set up to do competency basedassessment under the Australian Recognition Framework?

Mr Wallace—It depends on which way you look at that. As far as I am aware, all the skillsassessors are qualified skills assessors under the Australian Recognition Framework andtherefore they could undertake assessments in the trades they are qualified in under theAustralian Recognition Framework. So, as far as I am concerned, yes, they are qualified.

CHAIR —Your model proposes to maintain Trades Recognition Australia in the field ofassessment services, but there is already a network of RTOs which are familiar with theprocess of assessment based on competencies. I suppose what you have to do is convince uswhy we should go your way rather than the RTO way.

Mr Wallace—I think it is just the opposite. I think that people proposing to go the new wayshould prove to us that their way is better or at least equivalent to what we have got at themoment. I have seen no evidence of that. That is why I am here.

CHAIR —Perhaps you should present us with evidence on why you think your way is abetter way of going.

Mr Wallace—As far as I am aware, no-one else has ever undertaken migration skillsassessment, only TRA has. So how could they have the experience? What needs to be doneis to scientifically look at these new organisations, measure their capacity, try them, test themand see if they can do the job. I do not have a problem with that. But let us have a look atit a little more scientifically. If they can actually do the job, I have no argument.

CHAIR —So if your organisation is best suited for doing this, why is it that your workloadhas dropped off in recent years?

Mr Wallace—The workload has dropped off?CHAIR —Yes.Mr Wallace—I cannot comment on the current workload because I am not officially

working in that area and I think it is not appropriate for me to comment on the work flow.



Senator CARR—I am very pleased that you have come before the committee. As a publicservant who has worked in this area and as a tradesman in your own right, I think yourexpertise is of great value. Have you been encouraged to appear by your department?

Mr Wallace—Let us put it this way: they did not try to stop me.

Senator CARR—That is good, because there would be very serious repercussions if thatwas the case. You have not had any problems with your senior officers on this?

Mr Wallace—No. I have been working for the department for about seven years. They arevery professional in approaching most things and in this case it is not proven otherwise.

Senator CARR—That is very good. I just think it should be encouraged more often. Doyou have any reservations about commenting on the department’s submission?

Mr Wallace—I have not read the department’s submission, so I could not comment.

Senator CARR—You have not had access to the department’s submission?

Mr Wallace—I never actually asked to have it. I just imagine that they would be supportingthe outcome of the review.

Senator CARR—I expect them to support the government’s policy. That is the nature ofgovernment departments.

CHAIR —They did so when you were in government.

Senator CARR—No doubt, most of the time. The document will be published by thecommittee and so it is a public document. I am not asking you to talk about anything that isa private document or in any way inappropriate or in conflict with your role as a publicservant. What I would ask is that if you have the time could you give us your comments onthe department’s submission and DETYA’s submission, given your experience in this particulararea? I think that would be very valuable. I would ask that the secretary ensure that a copyis sent to Mr Wallace.

The question of fraud control is one that I am particularly concerned about—the whole issueabout the integrity of our qualifications framework, particularly given the importance of beingable to have credentials that mean something, both for the individual and the country as awhole in terms of the skills formation processes. I do not think there could be a moresignificant issue than ensuring that our national vocational educational system is of the highestquality and integrity. Would you agree with that?

Mr Wallace—Yes, I would agree with that.

Senator CARR—You indicate to us in your submission that you have concerns about theintegrity of the assessment processes as proposed under this legislation. As I read it—perhapsyou would correct me if I am wrong—you are suggesting that a fee for service arrangementeffectively means it is difficult to ensure quality and integrity. Is that what you are proposingto us?

Mr Wallace—I am proposing that, under a fee for service regime—you just cannot say perse that they are corrupt or whatever—there are some forces that may come to bear on thatarrangement that may ultimately result in something untoward happening within such anarrangement. You have only to read in the newspapers that with any fee for service ar-rangement that there is in Australia things do happen, and I accept that. The comment I madethere was basically to bring to your attention that, when the arrangements are being put inplace and things are being prepared for such a thing, it is all looked at in sufficient detail and



proper proportions and that safeguards are there to look after that side of things. That is allI was saying.

Senator CARR—You say here:Experience shows that this is exactly what unscrupulous operators have been trying to introduce into theskilled migration program, on a defacto basis, using migration agents as a conduit for their activities.

So are you saying there is a potential for corruption?

Mr Wallace—It is anecdotal, as I said. Can I put it this way: for example, you are speakingwith a migration agent who may be having difficulty getting someone through the system. Theagent holds concerns that the person is qualified and has the right paperwork et cetera but isnot jumping the hurdle and then starts questioning you about what is required for this personto jump the hurdle. You have to be guarded in what you say to the agent because you do notwant to be coaching someone through the hoops.

What you can best do is refer them to the ASCO dictionary, which is the scripture ofclassifications, and you will find, not long afterwards, documentation coming in with directlifts out of the dictionary. I cannot say that there is something going wrong there. All I amsaying is that maybe they are taking the easy route to get through the system. When youcompare such an action with what happens in other instances—where people supply the appro-priate documentation based on what is required, which is laid out in the application form—yousee that a great range of people can meet those requirements but all of a sudden you hear frommigration agents asking, ‘Please, can you help us to get over this hurdle?’ I just see thatimbalance as a potential problem. There is something wrong.

Senator CARR—With the new apprenticeship centres that have been established just overa year ago or maybe a little longer, there has been a conflict emerging between those providinga service to the clients—that is, workers seeking to undertake an apprenticeship—andcompanies seeking to employ workers, companies who obviously have a financial benefit inactually employing people—they do not normally do it as an act of charity.

There are also suggestions that there are emerging problems about the nature of themarketing arrangements undertaken by new apprenticeship centres whereby it is alleged indocumentation that was put before this committee that new apprenticeship centres are able tocoach employers and RTOs in how to meet the quality assurance arrangements of the variousstate authorities; that is, to circumvent the obviously noble intentions of ANTA, of the nationalframework committees and all the rest of them to actually secure a high quality training sys-tem. Do you think there is potential in this arrangement for that to occur?

Mr Wallace—I have been involved in the migrant skills assessment thing for a long time.Where someone who may not be up to the trade level that is required—because maybe theyhave falsified some documentation, they have overstated their case or whatever the case maybe—arrives in Australia and they end up at some organisations looking for training for a gasor an electrical licence or something like that, it would be of great concern to see themcoaching that person through the requirements to get that licence when the person has not gotthe underpinning skills and knowledge to actually operate in that industry.

Senator CARR—Both departments—DETYA and Employment, Workplace Relations andSmall Business—suggest that they are going to undertake extensive measures to prevent fraudin documentation and in the tender processes. They say that they are going to ensure that thereare authenticated documents. They say that they have extensive experience in uncovering fraud.

Mr Wallace—This is true.



Senator CARR—Yes, they have but we have seen little evidence of it, I must say. Theysay that they are going to find mechanisms to establish that the English translations are genuineand that staff are trained in the detection of fraudulent documentation. Do you think it ispossible to secure those things in all cases?

Mr Wallace—I am not comfortable commenting on the department, but I can confirm toyou that the trade skills assessors have been trained and that we know how to detect fraudulentdocuments and investigate things. In the past we have written to training organisations andemployers to confirm evidence that has been supplied in the portfolio of evidence. If that sortof structure, where there was some rigour in it and you could communicate with the employersand the training infrastructure in the country to verify and validate things, were to continue,I would have no problem with that.

Senator CARR—Yes.

Mr Wallace—If they could continue to provide that sort of rigour, there would be noproblems.

Senator CARR—Are you confident that can be provided under the proposals?

Mr Wallace—My experience with the department is that they have provided it up to thispoint, so they are capable of providing it.

Senator CARR—But the question arises about registered training organisations undertakingthose functions. You are saying that you think there is quality control if it is in the publicsector. But, if it is in the private sector and it is undertaken by private registered trainingorganisations, would you be equally confident that it can be provided?

Mr Wallace—That is where my concerns lie. I would like to see proof or evidence that theycould actually do the work. I do not have a problem with them actually doing the work if theycan prove in the transitional process that they are capable of doing the work to the levelrequired.

Senator CARR—Thank you very much.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —My question relates to the investigations that have beenconducted in the past in relation to education and training overseas and the data that has beenmaintained—although some argue not to relevant standards—in that area. Is there a need tomaintain that sort of data into the future?

Mr Wallace—Yes. It depends on which way you look at it. Different countries around theworld have introduced different systems. They issue different ranges of documentation—forexample, course certificates, completion certificates and records of study. There is a range ofdifferent things. With some systems, like those in Canada and the UK, you can reliably lookat them and probably map out some exercise between our system and theirs for linkages butthere are problems in a lot of other countries in that respect.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Has it been the TRA in the past that has performedpredominantly the role of gathering that data?

Mr Wallace—Yes. The skills assessors have been empowered to investigate training andemployment issues in other countries while they have been travelling overseas. I am awareof that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Do you know how the government proposes to collect suchinformation in the future?



Mr Wallace—I am aware that NOOSR undertakes such an investigation into educationalaspects of it. As far as the trades and skilled area goes, I have no idea what they are proposingfor the future.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Thank you.ACTING CHAIR (Senator Carr) —Thank you very much, Mr Wallace, for coming here

today. It is much appreciated.



[12.16 p.m.]BELL, Ms Margot, Director, Educational Assessments, Department of Education,Training and Youth AffairsMANNS, Mr Roderick, Acting First Assistant Secretary, Training and Youth Division,Department of Education, Training and Youth AffairsSAVARIS, Mr Giancarlo, Acting Assistant Secretary, National Office of Overseas SkillsRecognition, Department of Education, Training and Youth AffairsHAWGOOD, Ms Dianne, Group Manager, Regional Delivery Group, Department ofEmployment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessRICKARD, Mr John, Trades Recognition Australia, Department of Employment,Workplace Relations and Small BusinessO’CALLAGHAN, Mr James, Acting Assistant Secretary, Migration Branch, Departmentof Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

ACTING CHAIR —Welcome. The committee has before it submissions Nos 9, 10 and 11.Are there any changes you wish to make to any of these submissions?

Mr O’Callaghan —No. I am happy from the point of view of the Department of Immigrationand Multicultural Affairs.

Ms Hawgood—No.ACTING CHAIR —The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, although the

committee will also consider any requests for all or part of evidence to be given in camera.I point out that such evidence may subsequently be made public by order of the Senate. I nowinvite you to make a brief opening statement. Mr Manns, would you like to start?

Mr Manns —No, Senator; I have nothing to begin with.Ms Hawgood—No statement from us.ACTING CHAIR —Immigration, is there an opening statement?Mr O’Callaghan —No. I will be right there.ACTING CHAIR —Was there supposed to be someone from the Trades Recognition? No.

I will call on Senator Collins.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Who should I ask to give the committee a rundown of what

has happened since the government’s decision to repeal TRA in relation to implementationfactors following the review report? Who is in the best position to answer the question andplease describe the process?

Mr Savaris—Perhaps I could field that. The decision, if I recall correctly in terms of thecritical timing, was made some time during March. Following that decision, we developed arequest for tender which we discussed with colleagues in the Department of Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business. We also discussed, in the course of a meeting ofa consultative committee which was held on 12 April—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Can you describe this consultative committee?Mr Savaris—The consultative committee was actually formed as a result of a recommenda-

tion contained in the review of the TRR Act. It included representatives of various stakeholderssuch as trade unions and employer groups. It was a group which was put together by ourcolleagues in the department of employment in consultation with us. It also included arepresentative of the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Council as well as a representative



of the Migration Institute of Australia. I can actually furnish the full details of that to thecommittee in the next few days.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Yes. Could you include with that the details of theconsultative committee’s terms of reference?

Mr Savaris—Yes.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —If it is in line with the review report, I presume it has an

ongoing role rather than just to develop the terms of the tender.Mr Savaris—That is right. The purpose of that particular meeting on 12 April was to

discuss a draft of the request for tender which we had prepared in the department inconsultation with our colleagues in the department of employment. Following that consultativeforum meeting, a number of amendments were made to the request for tender. Then the requestfor tender was actually put out on 21 April. Tenders actually closed on 10 May. When webecame aware of the matter having been referred to the Senate committee, we deliberatelysuspended the evaluation of the tenders that we had received.

ACTING CHAIR —Are you saying you issued tenders before you knew whether thelegislation was going to be passed?

Mr Savaris—No, we issued the request for tender on 21 April—it was actually advertisednationally in the press—

ACTING CHAIR —But the bill had not been through the parliament. What do you see asthe relationship between issuing tenders and the legislative process to abolish the agency?

Mr Savaris—Our advice was that the authority to undertake assessments for migrationpurposes actually derives from the migration regulations rather than from the Tradesmen’sRights Regulation Act and that, therefore, there was no direct connection between the bill torepeal the act and the assessment for migration purposes. That advice was subsequentlyconfirmed when we decided to actually suspend consideration of the tenders that we received.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Is the TRA operating at the moment?Ms Hawgood—The Tradesmen’s Rights and Recognition Act is operating at the moment;

it is primarily related to domestic skills recognition. It is the Migration Act that is the authorityfor the pre-migration skills assessment.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I will refine my question. Is the TRA providing migrationassessments at the moment?

Ms Hawgood—Yes.ACTING CHAIR —So your actions are actually under regulations which are disallowable

instruments, are they not?Mr Savaris—Until 1 July, we operated under regulations that empowered NOOSR and TRA

to undertake assessment for migration purposes. The request for tender went out on the basisthat the successful tenderer would be required to provide assessments for migration purposesfrom 1 July 1999—not at the time that the tender request actually went out.

ACTING CHAIR —What are the regulatory arrangements as of today?Mr Savaris—As of today, NOOSR operates under Regulation 2.26B of the Migration

Regulations, which empower it to approve other assessing authorities to undertake pre-migration assessments. That authority then has to be confirmed by means of gazettal, by theMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. So we basically provide an endorsementof the suitability of an organisation to undertake assessments for migration purposes.



ACTING CHAIR —Through theGazette?

Mr Savaris—Yes. The gazettal is done, of course, by the minister for immigration.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Is this yet to occur, or has it occurred?

Mr Savaris—That has occurred.

ACTING CHAIR —When did that occur?

Mr O’Callaghan —The minister would have signed theGazettenotices just before 1 July;they took effect on 1 July 1999.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —The conclusion of the review is that the Commonwealthgovernment should ultimately vacate the migration skills assessment field, and that assessmentshould be undertaken on a free competition basis directly by RTOs established under the ARF,subject only to meeting additional requirements to be designated as relevant Australianauthorities under the regulations to the Migration Act. What is referred to there?

Mr O’Callaghan —The relevant Australian authority reference predated the 1 July regulationchanges—it was in the earlier form of regulations. Nevertheless, it is in the MigrationRegulations. The latest terminology is just slightly different: it talks about ‘relevant assessingauthorities’ but the effect is just the same. The head of power is the Migration Act: it providesa general power to make regulations. Within the regulations for each category of visa,—in thiscase we are talking about the points tested categories, particularly the independent migrantsand the skilled Australian linked migrants—there is a threshold requirement under schedule2 in the Migration Regulations that ‘the skills of the applicant for the nominated skilledoccupation have been assessed by the relevant assessing authority as suitable for thatoccupation’. So there is a threshold requirement in the migration regulations that someone’sskills are assessed against the relevant occupation. In the pre-1 July 1999 regulations, therewas a similar requirement: it was just somewhere else in the Migration Regulations. It wasin schedule 6 attached to the points test—but in a sense that is just a structural thing. Withinthe regulations, the relevant assessing authority is defined.

ACTING CHAIR —But under the present arrangements, it is not defined. Is that what youare saying?

Mr O’Callaghan —Under the current arrangements from 1 July 1999, ‘relevant assessingauthorities’ is defined under Regulation 2.26B. That is the reference that Mr Savaris gavebefore.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Before you move on, can you read us the currentdefinition?

Mr O’Callaghan —The definition of relevant assessing authority is Regulation 2.26B of theMigration Regulations, which states:The Minister may, by notice in theGazette, specify a person or body as the relevant assessing authorityfor a skilled occupation if the person or body is approved in writing by the Minister or NOOSR as therelevant assessing authority for the occupation.

ACTING CHAIR —So it is entirely as defined? Was it defined in any more specific termsunder the old regime?

Mr O’Callaghan —In similar sorts of terms. ‘Relevant Australian authority’ means NOOSRor anybody authorised in writing by NOOSR to assess educational qualifications or workexperience on behalf of NOOSR or the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations andSmall Business, and so on.



ACTING CHAIR —I am sorry if I missed this, but are you saying that we have removedthe reference to educational qualifications?

Mr O’Callaghan —That is not contained in the current reference.

ACTING CHAIR —So it is a much broader definition—minus the educational bit?

Mr O’Callaghan —Yes, the definition focuses on skilled occupation and the relevantassessing authority. The practical effect is the same, however.

ACTING CHAIR —We will get to the practical effect because that is the point of thisinquiry. That is the concern that we have about the practical effect.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Do we know whether these regulatory changes are beforethe Regulations and Ordinances Committee?

Mr O’Callaghan —I do not know the answer to that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —That is a matter we will need to clarify before we concludeour considerations. I have a question related to what we have just covered. Where is the headof power for NOOSR in relation to migration assessment agencies?

Mr O’Callaghan —It is in the Migration Regulations, as I understand it.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —So there was no change required for it to assume thatpower?

Mr O’Callaghan —No. I will ask my colleague at NOOSR to correct me if I am not righton that.

Mr Savaris—The change between pre-July and post-July is simply a requirement for theMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to in a sense confirm the endorsement givenby NOOSR by means ofGazettenotice. In the pre-1 July regulations there is no requirementfor a body that has been authorised by NOOSR in writing to undertake migration assessmentsto be also gazetted by the minister for immigration. That is really the change or thedifference—plus the department of employment is no longer specifically mentioned inRegulation 2.26B. That is in the post 1 July regulations.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —The department is specifically—

Mr Savaris—No, it is no longer specifically mentioned.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —It is NOOSR?

Mr Savaris—No, the pre-1 July regulations specify that the assessing authority was eitherNOOSR or TRA in the department of employment. The post 1 July regulation simply makesreference to NOOSR being able to approve in writing an assessing authority or the ministerfor immigration. So there is no longer a specific reference to the department of employmentin the new regulation.

Senator TCHEN—Did the appointment of any agencies require gazettal pre-1 July or wasit just through NOOSR appointment?

Mr Savaris—No, it did not require gazettal; it only required a written authority on the partof NOOSR for that body to be then authorised to issue skills assessments for migrationpurposes.

Senator TCHEN—But now a gazettal is required?

Mr Savaris—Now a gazettal is required.



ACTING CHAIR —I have before me the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999,which essentially is a repeal of the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulations Act 1946. Where do I findthe detail of the government’s proposed replacement in a legislative form? What bill do I lookto for that? Mr Manns, are you able to assist me in this regard?

Mr Manns —No, I am here as an add-on, in a sense. I am not involved day to day in theoperations of NOOSR and so on, but my understanding is that, as has been explained, the basisfor pre-migration assessments derives from the immigration legislation. It effectively hasnothing to do with the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act at all. It is simply the case that thesame body—namely, TRA—performed two lots of functions: one under that particular pieceof legislation in relation to domestic skills recognition and a separate function in relation topre-migration assessments, the power for which derived from the immigration laws.

ACTING CHAIR —I am interested in your response, Mr Manns. Once again, you havehelped me clarify some difficulties here. If the Senate chooses not to agree with thegovernment and does not repeal this legislation, what impact will that have on your operations?

Ms Hawgood—It has an impact on the domestic skills recognition arrangements but because,as my colleagues have said, it is the Migration Act and the regulations under that act thatgovern the pre-migration skills assessment, the repeal of the TRA—

ACTING CHAIR —Effectively, you are talking about the offshore processes.

Mr Manns —Yes.

ACTING CHAIR —If we choose, therefore, to say to the government that this is not whatthe Senate would like to do, what will happen to your operations collectively for domesticassessments?

Ms Hawgood—Domestic assessments?

ACTING CHAIR —Yes, under this bill. Presumably, the legislation is still in place.

Ms Hawgood—Yes, the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act would continue in place. Thatis correct. It would continue in parallel but, unless amended, it would not be aligned with thenew domestic arrangements under the Australian Recognition Framework.

ACTING CHAIR —Quite clearly, there will need to be some changes somewhere alongthe line. It would not be appropriate, in your judgment, for this bill to be rejected and no otheraction to be taken?

Ms Hawgood—It would not, because what would happen then is that you would have twoinconsistent systems running in parallel in relation to domestic assessments.

ACTING CHAIR —On the other hand, if the Senate were to take the view that this repealbill was not adequate and that there needed to be substantive changes to the government’sproposals, what in your judgment would be the best way to proceed on that basis?

Ms Hawgood—I am not quite sure what changes you are envisaging.

ACTING CHAIR —For instance, it is the evidence put before this committee today thatthere are a number of what are said to be transitional issues that go to the question of ensuringthe adequate quality controls and national assessment arrangements. There were other issuesraised in relation to the operations of registered training organisations as they appliedparticularly to this area. Are you proposing any further discussions with parties interested inthis particular matter?



Ms Hawgood—We are happy to discuss transitional arrangements, but it is our view thatthe Australian Recognition Framework is ready and appropriate to take up a consistent systemof domestic skills recognition.

ACTING CHAIR —Your problem is getting the Senate to agree with you. I am suggestingto you that that is an issue that needs to be considered at this point.I am asking you: how dowe establish what the government’s proposal is? It is not in a legislative format. We have aseries of regulations that appear—and I must say to you that there is some vagueness aboutthem, as far as I can see. As you say, they are subject to disallowance. Maybe that is anopportunity. We will have to have a look at them in more detail. But how do we establish whatthe government’s actual proposals are? Where do we see them? In what form are they beforethis committee?

Ms Hawgood—In relation to domestic or pre-migration environment?

ACTING CHAIR —Both, for that matter. You obviously say that there is a dual functionfor this organisation. What are you proposing to do about it once it is repealed?

Ms Hawgood—In terms of domestic skills recognition, what we are proposing is that theAustralian Recognition Framework and the RTO system pick up the functions that are currentlybeing undertaken through the TRR Act.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Except that there are some additional proposals which wewere fleshing through earlier, which are in part touched through the submissions from thedepartment but not in the way in which you can follow the full process. That describes thefact that we are looking at NOOSR picking up a government management agency role—

ACTING CHAIR —I would like to know more about that.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —and that there is a broad based consultative committee.My assumption has been that you have picked up model 4. It is that the case?

Mr Manns —I will try to clarify things a little in relation to the two sets of functions thatTRA currently has. It is important to recognise that, in relation to domestic skills recognition,it is effectively an option for an individual to make use of the TRA process. It is also anoption that currently exists for an individual to go along to their local TAFE college or anotherregistered training organisation and seek to have their existing skills recognised through aprocess of recognition of prior learning—RPL, as it is commonly called.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —So if we do not repeal this act, that dual choice continues.

Mr Manns —That would be my reading of the situation. The TRA mechanism would stillbe there alongside the domestic skills recognition process that operates through the trainingsystem, bearing in mind as well that the TRA mechanism, the domestic recognition process,is only in place for a relatively small range of skilled occupations—very few, in fact.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —What about with respect to the migration?

Mr Manns —With respect to the migration assessment process, the proposal—which I thinkis illuminated to a fair degree in the submissions—is that TRA would vacate that field andNOOSR would manage the process from here on by way of contracting one or more registeredtraining organisations to conduct those pre-migration assessments. The detail of that proposedrelationship between NOOSR and the contracted RTOs is spelt out in the request for tenderdocumentation.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Firstly, we had better ask for a copy of that, if it is thatsignificant.



Mr Savaris—We can make a copy of that request for tender available. There are severalreferences to the request for tender in our submission.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Yes. But its significance came to light after we had furtherexplanation of the process. We have already asked for the terms of reference for theconsultative committee as well.

Mr Manns —Just to round my remarks out completely, there is nothing in the proposedNOOSR arrangements that goes to NOOSR’s involvement in the process of domestic skillsrecognition.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Yes. I appreciate that.

Mr Manns —The impact of the government’s decision would simply take TRA out of thatbusiness and leave it otherwise untouched.

ACTING CHAIR —I have read your submission, but it is not clear to me what thegovernment’s proposals are with regard to this policy area. We have seen a number ofpositions advocated. I would like to know where I can find a precise description of thegovernment’s proposals.

Mr Savaris—I think you will find that in the request for tender. The request for tenderclearly states what the intentions of the government are in this respect. The request for tendermakes references to the report of the legislation review of the Tradesmen’s Rights RegulationAct 1946, and it picks up from where the review left off in terms of the process for selectinga registered training organisation to then undertake assessments for migration purposes. Therequest for tender also goes into a great deal of detail about the types of services that haveto be provided by the RTOs, et cetera.

ACTING CHAIR —We are now having this service contracted out, effectively. This is aprivatisation push. I want to know where the legislative framework is for us to assess that.Are you saying that the only documentation is this contract, this request for tender?

Mr Savaris—That is correct. The power to undertake assessments for migration purposesemanates from the Migration Regulations and is given both to the minister for immigrationand NOOSR, following gazettal by the minister for immigration. There is no other piece oflegislation that relates to this particular exercise.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —There may not be other legislation. This goes back to mypoint about NOOSR which was that the head of power already exists for them to have asupervisory role in relation to migration assessment agencies and whether there are otherproblems associated with regulatory changes that occurred. None of us have seen them yetso it is impossible for us to determine that issue.

That still leaves unanswered questions, which I assume are not in the request for tender, suchas: on what basis is this consultative committee established, what is its role, who is itcomposed of, how does it provide ongoing feedback in relation to industry concerns on theimplementation issues, et cetera? They are things that have not been covered in thedepartments’ submissions. I assume that they are the things that have not been covered in therequest for tender document. There is no alternative information before us on those mattersother than the fact that you are appearing here before us. I know from what you have said sofar that there was one meeting on 12 April. I also understand from Mr Roe’s earliersubmissions that he was unable to attend. I do not know who was able to attend. We do notknow which of the issues presented to the committee have been canvassed to date.



Mr Savaris—As I indicated, Senator Collins, I can make available the record of that meetingas well as the terms of reference for that consultative forum, as it was called. I will touchbriefly on the terms of reference for the consultative forum. The forum was designed toprovide relevant organisations with an opportunity to be consulted in relation to the criteriafor the selection of appropriate bodies and the monitoring of their performance by NOOSR.In other words, what was put before the bodies and individuals represented on that consultativeforum was a draft of the request for tender which then provided the basis for the discussionon 12 April.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr Savaris, you keep reminding me, by referring to thisas a consultative forum, to go back to my original question which was: has the governmentadopted model 4 in relation migration assessments?

Mr Savaris—Yes, basically the government would play a managing role.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Is there to be a committee?Mr Savaris—Is there to be a committee—Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Is there to be a broad based consultative committee as

recommended in model 4?Mr Savaris—The broad based consultative committee was established to provide comments

in relation to the request for tender.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —That is not the only role envisaged in model 4.Mr Savaris—Indeed. The other role that was envisaged for the committee was to involve

it in the review of the arrangements that would then be undertaken some 12 months after theirintroduction.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Is there a role envisaged in terms of determining tenders?Mr Savaris—No. The tenders will be determined by a committee made up of the relevant

Commonwealth agencies—namely, the three agencies represented here today.ACTING CHAIR —Are you saying that this will happen irrespective of the Senate’s attitude

to this bill?Mr Savaris—No. We did receive tenders from a number of interested RTOs, but we are

not, at this point in time, evaluating them precisely because we want to await the outcomeof this Senate inquiry.

ACTING CHAIR —But, Mr Savaris, you know what the outcome of this Senate inquirywill be, surely? I mean the government will support the government’s proposal, even thoughit is not clear what that is. You obviously know, from the nature of the questions that we havebeen asking, that we are very concerned. The issue will, however, be resolved on the floorof the Senate. I am asking first of all: why was not all of this material actually in thedepartmental submissions?

Mr Savaris—You mean the references to the consultative forum?ACTING CHAIR —Yes. And the actual government proposal: why was that not canvassed

in the various departmental submissions? Because I see this is different from what we haveunderstood to be the government’s proposal to this point.

Mr Savaris—I thought that our submissions actually did explain what the process wouldbe, or we had perhaps made an assumption that the committee would have been aware of theprocess up to that point.



Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr Savaris, for instance, the submission does not includethe fact that the government has adopted model 4. The submission does not include the factthat Migration Regulations changes occurred on 1 July—that I recall. They may be included.

Mr Savaris—These changes to the Migration Regulations are actually explained in thesubmission.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Can you take me to that? I must admit I looked fairlyclosely through the DETYA submission and then scanned the last two.

Mr Savaris—On page 5, section 3 of our submission goes into some detail about thechanges to the regulations and the way in which the Migration Act and the MigrationRegulations relate to the assessment of skills for migration purposes.

ACTING CHAIR —And can you take us to where the submission points out that thegovernment has adopted model 4?

Mr Savaris—The submission does not specifically make that point.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Just before we move on to that, you say:

Schedule 6 of the Migration Regulations, in force until 1 July . . .

Where is the comment about what comes into force post 1 July?ACTING CHAIR —It is a good point.Mr Savaris—The last line of that particular page actually makes a reference to changes that

are coming in from 1 July.ACTING CHAIR —Mr Savaris, we need to be clear about that. It says here:

These changes are part of the wide ranging changes that came into effect from 1 July 1999.

I am not a clairvoyant. I do not know what that means.Mr Savaris—Okay.Mr O’Callaghan —Senators, I make that comment in relation to the immigration department

submission. Senators are probably aware of an extensive review that was conducted over thelast couple of years of the independent and skilled Australian linked category, and that reviewculminated in its acceptance. That review was accepted, essentially in total, by the governmentand resulted in a package of changes coming in on 1 July 1999 including some regulationchanges. They are certainly touched on in the immigration submission.

ACTING CHAIR —Mr O’Callaghan, you appreciate that immigration may not be thespeciality of this particular committee and no doubt that would explain some of our failureto pick up the nuances. But I would put to you that your submissions are not clear. We donot have a clear understanding of what the government’s proposals are. I would say one wouldhave to be a mind-reader to appreciate the points that you have been making, based on theevidence that you have presented to us. Now I ask you: where does it say in this submissionthat the government has adopted model 4?

Mr Savaris—The submission does not actually make that particular reference. If it is ofhelp to the committee, we could provide a supplementary submission which covers thoseparticular issues.

Senator CARR—That might be appropriate at this point. If we are expected to assist thegovernment’s legislation, we are entitled to know what the government’s proposals are. I thinkwe are not entirely unfamiliar with the terrain here, and I cannot say that I am clear as to whatthe government’s proposals are based on the documentation that you have presented to us.



Mr Manns —I am having a little difficulty understanding where the lack of clarity is. Page5 of the DEWRSB submission makes it quite clear that there are two issues being discussed:the vacation by TRA of the domestic skills recognition field and the vacation by TRA of themigration skills assessment field. DETYA’s submission touches on both of those issues andexplains the proposed new arrangements for the migration skills assessments; namely, that theywould be conducted under NOOSR auspices, and it goes into some detail about thosearrangements.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Where is that detail?Mr Manns —Turn to the DETYA submission.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Sorry, but a moment ago you said page 5 of the DEWRSB

submission.Mr Manns —That is right. I am crossing between the two.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —You can understand our problem, can’t you?Mr Manns —I think the DEWRSB submission does make it clear that the implications of

the abolition of TRA are twofold: namely, it ceases to perform its domestic skills recognitionfunctions and it is also no longer available to perform migration skills assessment. The DETYAsubmission describes in some detail how the migration skill assessment processes wouldoperate under NOOSR auspices under the new arrangements.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —The first part of what you said is fine. The second partis what we are having difficulty comprehending from these submissions: what is the newproposal?

Senator CARR—That is right. And I would ask you to have another good look at section3 of your submission, Mr Mann. You are very careful with your language—I appreciate that—but it does not explain what the government is proposing to do.

Mr Manns —I am still at a bit of a loss to understand which aspects of the new NOOSRarrangements have not been explained. We are happy to answer those.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Okay. The first example, which we have covered threetimes already, is the broad based consultative committee: when, where, why, what and howwas it established?

Mr Manns —I think, as Mr Savaris has indicated, there was a forum established for thesingle purpose of assisting the department to finalise the request for tender documentation.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —But that is not model 4.Mr Manns —No-one has claimed that the government has given any commitment to—Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I think Mr Savaris said a moment ago that, yes, you had

adopted model 4.CHAIR —Stop interrupting the witness; please let him finish his answer.Mr Manns —I think your comment earlier was that you were surprised that the submission

did not say that the government had adopted model 4. I think the import of what Mr Savarisis saying is that the government has adopted the mechanism of having NOOSR as themanaging agent, which has been made clear in the submission.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I have actually asked the model 4 question about threeor four times, and I am quite sure theHansardwill reflect the fact that on one occasion theanswer I received was, ‘Yes, the government had adopted model 4.’



Senator CARR—Would you like to clarify that now?

Mr Savaris—I will clarify that: in the broad sense, it did adopt model 4, insofar as thereis a role there for NOOSR to act as a government managing agent and to act as a coordinatingbody. I have not actually got in front of me the exact words from the review of the legislationabout model 4, but if I could just outline briefly what is being envisaged.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —That is what I was hoping Mr Manns was about to takeus to in the DETYA submission where he said you addressed NOOSR and its new role.

Mr Savaris—Right. What is envisaged and what certainly has been covered in the requestfor tender, if not sufficiently clearly in our submission, is that the National Office of OverseasSkills Recognition manages the process in the following way: it calls for tenders, evaluatesthe tenders in consultation with the department of employment, the department of immigrationand with ANTA, and—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —So ANTA will be involved in the determination of thetender?

Mr Savaris—Yes, they are on the selection panel.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Can we have the full details of the selection panel please?

Mr Savaris—Yes, we can provide those. Once the registered training organisation areselected, they would be asked to sign a deed of agreement—it is going to be a deed ratherthan a contract because there will be no money changing hands between the Commonwealthand the registered training organisation—and that registered training organisation would thenbe gazetted by the minister for immigration. At that point we will put in place a set ofmonitoring arrangements which are intended to ensure the integrity of the process. NOOSRwould then also be responsible, after 12 months, as indicated in the review of the legislation,for undertaking a review of the arrangements. At that point, decisions will be made as towhether there is a continuing need for a government managing agent to oversee this particularfunction or whether other monitoring arrangements are more appropriate.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr Savaris, this goes to the nub of our concerns. TheSenate is being asked to repeal an arrangement which is to be replaced by an arrangementwhere many of the issues are out to tender, so to speak, such as how to deal with issues whichhave been dealt with in the past by the TRA—fraud control, conflict of interest considerations,to name a few. This committee is being asked to consider a myriad of issues that are beingpresented to us from various parties where the department says to us that, yes, they are outto tender. We have asked the tenderers to provide us with how they think they can best solvethis situation. They are going to come back with their proposed solutions to these problemsand a committee comprising departmental officials from DETYA, DEWRSB, ANTA andDIMA are going to consider all of those issues, outside of our control, and come to us withthe solution. Then NOOSR will monitor that outcome in a way where you cannot provide usany details about how that will be monitored.

Mr Savaris—What details are we unable to provide?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —What are the details of the NOOSR monitoringarrangements?

Mr Savaris—They are covered in our submission. For example, page 13 goes into quitesome detail about the type of monitoring that we would be providing, and this is monitoringin addition to the monitoring that is provided by state and training authorities of the RTO. On



page 14, we also describe how NOOSR has already been engaged in providing monitoringof assessments undertaken by other assessing authorities also for migration purposes.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Going to these details that you have provided here onmonitoring, I will give you an example of one of the concerns that industry has raised withus that they would already want to input into your process. Point 2 refers to ‘Applicationsfinalised during quarter by above variables, plus outcome of assessment’. Given the natureof this process, you will need to include there the nature of the assessment process. One ofthe questions already canvassed with us is: on how many occasions and in what particularfields are you going to need to do more than just paper assessments? That is not currentlyencompassed in what you are monitoring, according to what you are telling us now.

Mr Savaris—That will be one issue that is actually considered as part of the request fortender. In the request for tender, we have actually asked the tenderers to describe in somedetail how they are proposing to undertake assessments.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —We are talking about NOOSR monitoring the assessmentprocess, not how assessors are assessing.

Mr Savaris—Further down on page 13, we do say:NOOSR will undertake scheduled audits of the successful tenderer at 6 monthly intervals, and mayundertake other investigation or auditing in response to complaints or other concerns of which it maybecome aware.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —My concern with this description is that it does not includeany of the elements of a process nature that the review discussed when it talked about a broadbased consultative committee. You need some mechanism to feed into the process the concernsthat might arise from those interested parties. That does not exist in the monitoring process,according to what has been described here.

Mr Savaris—There is nothing to stop interested parties from raising those or any concernswith us.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —There is no mechanism for feedback in your monitoringprocess.

Mr Savaris—Do you mean in terms of the consultative forum and the role it might have—Senator JACINTA COLLINS —A forum implies a one-off event. That is not a process.Mr Savaris—In relation to other assessments that have been done for migration, as we

discuss on page 14, the types of arrangements are not very dissimilar to what already happensin the case of a number of other agencies conducting assessments for migration. If anything,the monitoring process that we are envisaging in the case of the registered trainingorganisations will be far more rigorous than what is already happening and what hasdemonstrably worked very successfully.

Senator CARR—That is a point in question that might need to be assessed. There will bea Senate inquiry into the quality of our registered training organisations and the provisionthroughout the process—

CHAIR —That is not through the Senate yet.Senator CARR—I think there is a reasonable expectation—I will rephrase that. I am anxious

to see that happen. I expect it will occur, so we will have a chance to assess that claim youhave made.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —You are confident, aren’t you?



Senator CARR—Yes, I am very confident. I am particularly concerned, though, about theclaims that the present situation is working well. For instance, we have two registered trainingorganisations operating, involving overseas students particularly, which are currently thesubject of public controversy: the Business Institute of Victoria, which was enrolling studentsoutside their VET qualifications on the basis of visas being issued by the Department ofImmigration and Multicultural Affairs and we have the National Colleges of Australia thatrecently went bankrupt in Sydney, where I understand some 400 students have gone missing.

CHAIR —Senator, do you have a question or is it an editorial comment?

Senator CARR—There are numerous examples now of the failures of quality control inour vocational education and training system involving overseas students, particularly on thequestion of the level of coordination between various agencies of government.

CHAIR —Order, Senator! It is alleged and it is anecdotal. Could I just remind you that wedid allocate one hour for this group and one hour will be up in five minutes.

Senator CARR—Thank you very much for your advice, Chair.

CHAIR —We will be adjourning at 1.15 p.m.

Senator CARR—I always appreciate your advice.

CHAIR —Just to guide you in your questioning, we will be five more minutes.

Senator CARR—I would ask the officers: is there an interdepartmental committee that isactually examining questions that have arisen in relation to immigration problems with overseasstudents in regard to our vocational educational system? Is there any method of liaison at themoment?

Mr O’Callaghan —Senator, I think we should perhaps take that question on notice.

Senator CARR—Thank you. I would ask you specifically: do you have a black list ofcolleges and can you name those colleges that are currently using the various regulatoryframeworks in such a manner that you would find less than satisfactory, under the ESOS Act,under the various regulations which we are told were the model that you have applied to theseparticular proposals? Is it the case that there are colleges operating outside of the ESOS Actand being used as visa scams? Is that your opinion? Do you have any advice to us on thatmatter?

Mr O’Callaghan —Senator, I cannot give you any advice from the point of view of theDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, other than that we are happy to takethe question on notice and get back to you.

Senator CARR—Thank you.

CHAIR —Senator Collins, we have about another four minutes.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I appreciate that. Page 8 of the DETYA submission refersto ‘by Committee’. Is that this cross-departmental committee?

Mr Savaris—I am sorry; I have not found your—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Page 8, DETYA, at the very top, second line, states:. . . the outcome of this inquiry by Committee.

Mr Savaris—I am sorry. That is a typing error. It should have been ‘by the Committee’,meaning this particular committee—your committee.

CHAIR —I see.



Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I see. The best situation to leave my concerns with at themoment is for me to wait and receive the additional information including the tenderdocument. What I would also ask you to do on notice is to have a look at the proposals thathave been put to the committee. There is one that the AMWEU put. I think there was anotherin one of the submissions as well. But the AMWEU one is the main one, where it clearlyhighlights their outstanding concerns in relation to both domestic recognition and migrantrecognition. Could you respond from the department’s perspective in terms of how you thinkthe process which is in place deals with the concerns raised therein, particularly on thedomestic end, where there are concerns about some of the state qualifications issues—forexample, as we heard in evidence earlier, about Queensland setting up dual testing arrangementin relation to some electrical areas?

Mr Savaris—That is fine. If copies could be provided to us by the secretariat, we will behappy to respond.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Thank you. Can you also indicate in terms of model 4 howthe government’s proposal is different from what was proposed in model 4? My particular areaof concern is the broad based consultative arrangements which, from my understanding ofmodel 4, were to be an ongoing arrangement. Please advise the committee what is actuallyin place and what is proposed in relation to a feedback mechanism.

CHAIR —Thank you, Senator. I thank the officers of the various departments. Thatconcludes examination of the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999.

Committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m.


senate€¦ · · 1999-10-05may make the request and the committee will consider such a request,...

Documents