Page 2124 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 2 August 2016

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

The Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, audit of CIT’s electrotechnology department also found CIT to be fully compliant in all examined aspects of the delivery and assessment of the certificate III in the electrotechnology electrician qualification. I would like to place on record my appreciation for the staff of CIT who took on this challenge and ably provided quality training to those students affected by the crisis.

Moving to the specific recommendations, as the Assembly is aware, on 9 June 2016 the committee released its final report, incorporating the interim report released earlier in the year. In total the committee has made 15 recommendations for the government to consider: 10 in the interim report and an additional five recommendations in the final report.

Overall, the government has agreed to the majority of recommendations of the committee and will work towards implementing those. The government has noted three recommendations—F1, F2 and F3—and does not agree with recommendation F4.1. I am happy to take the Assembly through the reasons why.

Recommendations F1 and F2 were noted. The government is satisfied that CIT has already undertaken the necessary processes to ensure that all graduating students have completed the necessary components of the electrotechnology training package. The Capstone unit, which is part of the qualification, provides a holistic assessment of skills and knowledge apprentices have gained during their apprenticeship. This assessment has been validated and is overseen by industry representatives and the ACT electrical industry regulator.

As already mentioned, the ASQA audit provided additional assurance that CIT continue to deliver the high standards required by the sector, by the government and by the community, and the ACT electrical industry regulator, which has the responsibility for issuing the electricians licence, has at no time expressed any concern regarding the competence of graduates from CIT.

With regard to recommendation F3, the government is also noting this recommendation as we consider that CIT has fully cooperated with the committee in the course of its inquiry. CIT has appeared before the committee on three occasions and provided comprehensive information on its training and assessment processes. In addition, CIT has provided responses to five questions on notice. The government is satisfied that all information requests from the committee have been responded to appropriately.

With regard to recommendation F4.1, I think it important to make clear the process that occurs in the event that an RTO cannot continue training, as was the case with the electrotechnology group. There seems to be some confusion from within the committee about this and the relevant sections of the Training and Tertiary Education Act 2003 may not have been fully taken into account.

While CIT are often well placed—due to their size and breadth of training—to take in students that may have commenced training with another provider which is unable to continue training, it is not their role to manage the transfer process. This role is, in fact, undertaken by the director-general of the administrative unit responsible for training

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video