1

Brief History

transitioned from a school based apprentice to a 4 year apprenticeship on

On receiving the Host Employer Agreement I researched a number of resources in respect of the apprenticeship system, and in particular the role and responsibilities of a host employer, finding out that training the apprentice in on-the-job skills in the trade in which the apprentice enrolled, was the main role.

The above findings resulted in me delaying signing the agreement, as I was very concerned about being able to fulfil the role with my limited experience and qualifications

I received the Host Employer Agreement on around , along with a letter stating that could not start with me as an apprentice until the Host Agreement was received by

in fact started on or around the designated date, but the agreement was not signed until well into the 2016 calendar year.

These statements are made in the event has failed to follow compliance in respect of starting an apprenticeship without a Host Agreement in place.

I sought a meeting with regarding problems I was experiencing with the scheme in early 2017; the request was never followed up on by

Regardless, it was well-known that I was having serious issues with the system as outlined later in this submission, and yet the GTO response was simply another invoice, no attempt to offer advice and/or solutions

The remainder of this submission outlines my evaluation of where has not complied with many Standards outlined in the National Standards for Group Training Organisations (2017), however I emphasise I have little knowledge of the system as a whole.

I would imagine only a person or entity, well-versed in the Standards, would be able to objectively and accurately assess compliance or otherwise

To that end, I am in the process of making a complaint to the Apprenticeship office of the , and in fact will submit this submission to that department as my complaint in the first instance. My notes as to the treatment I have received may not be relevant to the investigative process it undertakes however believe many of the additional notes may give some insight into the effects bad governance by GTO’s, and failure of GTO’s to comply with standards, can have adverse effects on apprentices and host employers in particular.

The following summary outlines my own work history, its relevance explained later:

2

Host Employer Experience and Qualifications

The following summary of my work history is provided, supporting the fact that I was, and remain, unqualified in my view, to ever be assessed as a suitable host employer for carpenter/joiner apprentices

1970 -1972

Trained as a brick paver on many Perth home sites and unit developments

1973 -1978

Self employed brick paver for private and government contracts, installed skylights and Velux roof windows, instant turf and gardens for private customers, as well as to builders/developers display centres.

1979 – 1980

Design consultant for

1981 -1982

Design Consultant for automatic irrigation systems for

1982 -1983

Started Diploma of Education at

1983 -1995

Various sales management positions for companies such as business broking representative for

Pty Ltd

1996 – 1998

Founded , designed and produced a fishing product

1999 – 2004

CEO and Chairman of Pty Ltd, manufacturing fishing tackle in China and Taiwan and sold in Australia and the USA

2003 – 2012

Breeder of beef cattle on three properties and undertook off-farm work as a brick paving / bricklaying contractor in and around Albany to supplement farm income. Secured a government contract to pave in 2006 through 2009

3

2013 – 2018

On separating from partner, sold farming property and undertook brick paving, steel roofing, brick and block laying, gyprocking, rendering, and started doing small home improvements such as bathroom and kitchen upgrades, tiling and some timber framing of walls and roofs (if required as part of a renovation). Some roofing work, such as removal of tiles and replacement with metal and/or replacement of old metal roofing, including gutters etc

2018 - Present

Small renovations (mainly upgrades to kitchens, bathrooms and laundries).

Relevance

I consider myself competent in masonry skills such as brick paving, bricklaying, tiling, above average in D.I.Y. skills such as basic carpentry, fixing (doors, architraves, skirtings etc).

All skills in any form of carpentry are self-taught, no formal training, and never worked under supervision of a carpenter or joiner

While I consider myself above average in terms of basic carpentry skills, based on all I have read on the VET sector and the apprenticeship system in Australia, there appears to be a general view that GTO’s should rigorously assess the qualifications of host employers, to ensure apprentices receive a good standard of mentoring and training on site. To place carpenter/joiner apprentices with me, with no formal qualifications and little hands-on experience would seem totally irresponsible.

It should be noted here that I did not seek an apprentice; I was asked to take a work experience student on as an apprentice, as a placement could not be found with a host employer with suitable qualifications in the chosen field.

In my opinion has acted very poorly and should be audited thoroughly in regard to the practice, as I believe I may not be an isolated case in this regard. I am aware

now works for a steel shed building company in Manjimup.

Further, I feel GTO’s need to be mindful of the impact a mismatch between apprentice and host employer can have on both parties, the apprentice fails to complete, the host employer puts in time and effort and loses income during the apprenticeship term, and all for nothing if the apprentice then leaves the system due to bad management practice on the part of the GTO

4

GTO Non-Compliance with National Standards for Group Training Organisations (2017)

Recruitment, Employment and Induction

had a responsibility to provide high quality on and off the job training to ensure the apprentice developed as a skilled worker, and for their completion of a recognised qualification (Standards 1.1)

had a responsibility to have in place strong processes for recruiting and assessing host employers who had the capacity to provide the facilities, range of work and supervision in relation to the training plan required for the apprenticeship, that is host employers with the skills to reinforce the off-the-job training provided by the RTO (in this case ) with on-the-job experience in their workplace.(Standards 1.1)

As both apprentices were Carpenter/Joiner apprentices it is very difficult to comprehend how I in any way qualified as a host employer for them, based on my background as outlined earlier in this correspondence?

As also mentioned earlier I queried the matter with the VET office at with both the college and with a Business Development

Manager from and the following day was told everything was OK to proceed

It is my belief that one of the apprentices I employed now works for a steel shed builder in , whilst still pursuing qualifications as a carpenter/joiner

had an obligation to me as a host employer, to take reasonable steps to ensure I understood the apprenticeship system (Standards 1.3)

While I had a basic knowledge of the meaning of an apprenticeship, one key factor which was not explained to me prior to engaging the apprentices was the reluctance of clients to pay for apprentice services, this became very clear to me early in the arrangement, where clients objected to paying an hourly rate for an apprentice who spent many hours simply observing and/or undergoing training.

made no attempt, nor asked any questions, pertaining to my business model, hence overlooking the fact that I myself worked on an hourly rate and therefore if I could not bill the apprentice out to clients then I would suffer a significant income loss.

In my opinion a GTO should provide information regarding the problems in charging out apprentices, especially to sole traders working on an hourly rate, It became very clear to me later that it was a well known issue

5

had an obligation to document any issues arising in the training plan development and implementation process, impacting on the apprenticeship by the GTO and/or host employer and referred to the RTO, and action taken to address these issue (Standard 1.4)

I have never seen a training plan, nor even knew it existed, if indeed it did

I would expect a training plan which was prepared presumably to match off and on the job training toward an apprentice receiving adequate hands on experience in his/her chosen field would be a difficult plan to follow if the on the job experience had no relevance to the RTO theoretical material.

I therefore doubt a training plan existed, and if it did would ask why I was never queried as to the relevance of the on the job training whereas daily time sheets submitted by the apprentice and signed by me, showed daily tasks such as demolition, tiling, brick paving, brick and block laying, steel framing and the construction of steel aircraft hangars, gyprocking and rendering for example.

The timesheets would clearly show significant disparity between a training plan and the work being done, and according to the guide to compliance in relation to Standard 1.4, the GTO should maintain records of discussions between the RTO and the host employer, regarding reviews about competency based progression etc

I have no idea as to the exact meaning of the latter, but assume it in some way should show the apprentice is making progress in acquiring knowledge and practical experience in this case in carpentry and joinery

I believe an audit of would show little effort if any was made in respect of the operation of a training plan, and question its relevance in any case, given the circumstances

I have read the National Guidelines and understand the “Guides to Compliance” are not themselves “Standards”, and that GTO’s make their own rules as to how to comply, yet find the guidelines are well-written and seem almost in all cases relevant and necessary compliance issues

Given my history with this GTO, I do not think a GTO should be self-regulating which appears to be the case

Regardless of whether failure to demonstrate compliance to the “Guide to Compliance” is itself a breach, I would state that given my outline above, the GTO has not acted properly in relation to supervising the training process, even if it had properly assessed me as a host employer and ensured I qualified in providing meaningful supervision to the apprentices, a robust process of evaluating apprentice progression would have revealed the apparent disparity in training

6

Monitoring and Supporting Apprentices and Trainees to Completion

In the Context section of the Standards in regard to this particularly standard, the importance of effective systems to monitor and support apprentices, and increase the likelihood of completing their qualification and becoming skilled workers is emphasised

It also stresses the importance of strong relationships with host employers as purchaser of services and supervisor in the workplace.

It further indicates that monitoring levels need to be sufficient to maintain a high level of oversight of the progress of the apprentice against the training plan, including making a regular assessment of the quality and breadth of their work, and the adequacy of the supervision of on-the-job training by the host employer. Monitoring levels also should enable decisions about support and mentoring in the workplace, in line with the need of hosts and the apprentice.

It further indicates that risks associated with inadequate monitoring include non-completion of qualification by the apprentice and loss of repeat business with the host employer.

I am sure an audit of documentation will show a complete lack of mentoring and support to either apprentices or I, certainly one apprentice I employed came to the conclusion that a carpenter/joiner qualification was not for him, and he left to go travelling around Australia with his girlfriend.

It is my belief that this apprentice became disillusioned with the training, he was interested in woodwork and found himself jack hammering tiles from a bathroom floor and other work totally removed from his chosen field

There is also no doubt that will never obtain repeat business from me.

This Standard also refers to workplace rotations, presumable a means of ensuring an apprentice receives on-the-job training across a wide area of skills if such skills cannot be provided by one single host employer

Given that I was inadequate from the start as a host employer due to lack of qualifications and experience, I would question why an apprentice, who started with me on work experience, then as a school-based apprentice, and finally an apprentice on a 4 year signed contract, could even legally be rotated to another employer while that contract for 4 years was in place. Had i put a few years of hard effort and spent a significant amount of money into training up an apprentice, I would certainly challenge such a strategy

More frustrating of course is the fact that a 4 year contract, locking the apprentice into my employ, thus preventing him from getting relevant on-the –job training, can in any way be construed as relevant and effective management by . Further if the

7

apprentice completes a carpenter/joiner apprenticeship under those conditions, and while doing on-the-job work irrelevant to the qualification then I would question the skill level achieved would equip him well as a tradesman

I suspended the employment of this apprentice, as I felt I was not providing adequate training or supervision, pending getting more relevant work in the carpenter/joinery area, however prior to moving into that area of work, without notice moved the apprentice to another host employer, a registered builder, I would question why it took me to suspend the apprenticeship for to rotate the apprentice earlier, and suspect the answer lies in the fact he was under a 4 year contract etc.

Regular assessment of host employer’s capacity to provide the range of work and supervision is also mentioned in Standard 2.4, I am sure little assessment took place.

It is my belief that acted well outside the National Standards in regard to its monitoring and support obligations, resulting in one of my apprentices leaving the program, and the other unlikely to develop relevant skills, further it resulted in my business spending much time and incurring significant financial losses, while working within a system which is significantly flawed if companies such as , are able to remain operating without more robust compliance measures.

I would be quite sure that an audit of all current apprentices employed by will indicate my case is not an isolated one etc.

Further to the above matters which concern the National Standards, I would also like to mention that the Host Employer Agreement itself (Training Clauses 26 and 27) makes reference to the following responsibilities of a host employer in order that it assists to

1. Cause the apprentice to be instructed in the skills of the declared trade 2. Provide all necessary facilities to ensure the apprentice receives appropriate

training in that trade 3. To enable the apprentice to attend and undertake the required Certificate of

Trade Studies Course and the required on-the-job training for that trade 4. To enable the apprentice to receive other such instructions or training as may

be required to learn the skills of that trade

Clause 26 asks the host employer to provide all assistance to requests in relation to compilation of periodic reports on the performance and progress of the apprentice

I would confirm here that I do not recall any request from pertinent to the above matters, and that I would certainly struggle to make assertions that the apprentice was making progress in his on-the-job training, it was simply speaking, totally inadequate

8

Standard 2.6 regarding competency based progression probably sums up many of the shortfalls of

GTO Governance and Administration

Standard 3.8 outlines operation of the complaint processes in place

My first observation, formed after endeavouring to complain to the regulatory body for GTO’s, was the absence of a clear pathway to facilitate this, on its Host Employer Agreement

I advised that if it did not engage with me on issues I had, I would report the matter to various institutions without avail, and it ignored my requests to discuss issues

On finding the National Complaints Hotline online, I was directed to the Apprenticeship Office of the Department Workplace Training & Development and my complaint will now be lodged with that entity

I found no evidence of a reference to the National Standards for Group Training Organisations on the Host Agreement, nor the website.

Had I realised I had rights under this document I would have sought redress against much sooner. I believed that I had made a commercial decision to employ the

apprentices, and that I had no defence in respect of the final result of my association with the company.

I believe the Standards should be indicated on all contractual documentation and websites of GTO’s, it would give host employers a checklist in order to assess the compliance or otherwise of a GTO and allow for early intervention to an issue.

I have compiled a transcript here of email and/or text correspondence with Worksmart, and/or other entities in the interests of interested parties getting an idea of the difficulty in registering a complaint with the company, without having to read the entire email trail. The emails and/or texts of course are available on request

November 2016

Received an invoice from and sent invoice back with a request to contact me regarding difficulties I was having charging out apprentice to customers. No reply was forthcoming, sadly there is no record of this request, as it was handwritten on an invoice and mailed to , however employee and VET staff were aware of my concerns

10

18 September 2018

I replied, rejecting the offer and stated to the effect tha had not complied with the National Standards (2017) and that I would not be paying anything and would be taking action against

18 September 2018

, stating that my “rant” had no relationship to the fact that I had not paid for labour hire services I received and that he would not respond to further correspondence from me. He suggested I discuss the potential of a slander action against me with my legal team before making statements about or its employees or associates, and that legal action will now commence to recover the debt.

18 September 2018

I replied that he had denied me the right to discuss the matter and that I would make a formal complaint

18 September 2018

informed me that Outlook would now process all emails from me as junk mail, and directed me to post all future correspondence

19 September 2018

I emailed reception at and advised of threats in regard to Outlook etc, and advised that I worked away from home and needed a contact person to freely communicate by email to come to a resolution to the matter. Asked for the name of a director or head office with which to communicate. No reply was forthcoming

19 September 2018

Asked reception for the ownership structure of . Reception replied it was an independent organisation and had no affiliations

19 September 2018

Emailed reception that as I worked away from home, my circumstances did not favour mailed communication. Reception advised me that as previously advised by , all correspondence should be addressed to

6 December 2018

Emailed reception at and asked for the address for service of documents of a legal nature and asked if action should be taken against or

11

. Also advised reception that had blocked my emails and asked again for an alternative contact person. No reply was forthcoming

End of email summary

Summation

It should be clear from the above transcript that complaining to is a futile process.

Whether it has any right to ignore a complaint because it has obtained legal judgement is questionable, however I would argue that it should not be able to do so.

Standard 3.8 refers to a number of responsibilities that a GTO has in regard to providing a fair platform for complaints has failed in this area.

The company will cite that I have not paid invoices in a timely fashion, as a defence to its actions, whereas it can reasonably be seen that the company has not complied with my requests for information, nor even bothered to respond to my complaints. Its actions are responsible for the failure of the agreement; they led to significant losses to my business

With regards to financial governance it should be noted that at a time when I owed nearly $4000 and had not paid anything for many months, it allowed another apprentice to be placed with me, again as a carpenter/Joiner

Again with regard to financial governance – no credit check was performed by on me or my business, no questions as to my financial well-being were ever raised, given my financial situation at the time the apprentices would probably not have been placed with me, if had bothered to check

Given the fact that apprentices livelihoods are at stake, and in the pursuit of apprenticeships going full-term I find the lack of attention to financial viability of stakeholders very concerning

If this company is receiving anything by way of government subsidies or other funding, I see it as nothing but rorting of that funding, by not properly adhering to the National Standards and behaving in an extraordinary manner to its partners in the VET System.

I should emphasise here than on reviewing The 2015 National Standards for Registered Training Organisations, I can see no evidence that

, as the RTO associated with , is in any way non-compliant. I have made several approaches to and have received prompt attention. Sadly privacy policies have prevented me from obtaining documents pertaining to the apprenticeship through that channel. In any case as the principal employer of

12

apprenticeships, seems to be responsible for providing guidance to apprentices and host employers through the apprenticeship process.

Similarly I have no issues with the , which I believe is dedicated to achieving outcomes for its students who go on to seek apprenticeships.

, and with whom most negotiations were made about the apprenticeship process I entered, was clearly acting with enthusiasm and dedication.

If GTO’s are to remain as part of the VET system, it is my belief that more robust governance is required; the extent to which has not complied with the 2017 Standards is extraordinary.

This correspondence is provided to you, as part of my submission to the 2018 VET Review; I think I have probably answered the core questions on the template provided, albeit in a novel manner, and feel I have already answered the question about what is needed to change in the VET system, but summarise as follows:

1. I believe the VET system as a whole is well coordinated 2. I believe the school VET offices, and the RTO’s have the students/apprentices

welfare, forefront in their policies from my experience, and that is because they are educators

3. I believe the GTO network appears to be too commercial, interested in profits only, less interested in outcomes for the apprentices, has too many conflicts (such as operating as a labour hire company as well as placing apprentices)

One caveat on the three comments however is that I have based the third comment on my experiences with only one GTO

If my experiences are an isolated one and most GTO’s are compliant and well run then so be it, it was my bad fortune in getting involved with

If however the experiences I have had are endemic then I feel that some scrutiny as to the GTO business plan model is required, maybe have them specialize in apprentice placements, or labour hire, but not both.

By far the most relevant conflict occurs when trying to make sense of the concept of a GTO rotating apprentices to gain experience across a broad range of skills, if all skills cannot be provided by a single host employer, but instead signs an apprentice up for a 4 year term with a host employer with no formal qualifications and little experience, purports that it will review and monitor apprentice performance according to the achievement of core competencies. The first review would undoubtedly have resulted in a decision from a reputable and well-governed GTO, to remove the apprentice from me, the host employer. I therefore believe no review took place.

13

Given the close association between as the RTO, I do wonder if the GTO in this case has had much involvement in the training process, and also question why, now three years hence, I have never met any person from either RTO or GTO management in a workplace setting. I met once at a morning tea at the

Please be advised that the primary purpose of this document is as a submission to the VET Review (2018), and due to a time constraint (closure of the review occurred on 25th January, however I was allowed an extra few days, expiring at midnight tonight, an hour from now) I find I have not been able to provide a more thorough document.

I was referred to the VET Review 2018 by the and hence intend offering a copy of the submission to the Government Ministers heading that entity

A further copy will be sent to the as the regulatory body for Group Training

Organisations as my complaint against the GTO

Thank you for the opportunity to submit it

My contact details are: