VET & TAFE
campusreview.com.au
When the shambolic training that
plagues other industries hits the
security sector, lives may be lost.
by John Mitchell
I
Coroners’
reports tell
the story
18
nadequate training in the VET sector can put lives at risk.
This point was made recently by coroners around Australia
investigating the deaths of patrons – as the Australian Skills
Quality Authority put it in a recent media release – “during or as
a result of restraint or intervention by security personnel in the
course of incident control, particularly around licensed premises”.
The coroners’ reports “raise significant public safety issues
and suggest that a number of training and assessment issues
are potentially contributing factors to fatalities” the authority’s
statement continued.
These coroners’ reports drove ASQA’s latest strategic review
of an industry. The findings appear prominently near the start of
the executive summary of the recently released ASQA report
Training in Security Programs in Australia. In exposing the flaws in
the training provided in the security industry, ASQA has provided
a valuable service. But its report also, inadvertently, raises bigger
questions about whether the policymaking and governance
arrangements for VET nationally are so poor the whole sector
is beyond saving, even by a national takeover of VET – a kite
the federal government is currently flying. More about kites and
governance later in the column.
ASQA’s focus on training in the security industry shows that two
fundamentals are not in place: consistent licensing arrangements
across state borders and effective training and assessment.
First, as a result of slipshod policymaking, licensing issues exist:
ASQA finds licensing requirements across states and territories are
“inconsistent”, and this encourages individuals to seek licences in
those states with the easiest requirements.
“Despite the decision of Australian Governments in July 2008
to harmonise job skills requirements for the security industry, this
is yet to occur,” the report’s key findings stated. “The operation of
the Mutual Recognition scheme allows RTOs and students to avoid
increased state-based licensing requirements by obtaining their
licences in other states and then having those licences recognised
in their home state.”
Second, there are issues around the training package for the
security industry and the quality of the training provided. If we
hadn’t read almost identical sentences in ASQA’s previous reports
on equine skills, construction, childcare and aged-care training, the
reader might be shocked by the following findings:
“Training courses are generally very short and do not allow
sufficient time for the development and assessment of skills and
knowledge. Almost no assessment is being conducted in the
workplace. There is evidence of learners with inadequate levels
of language, literacy and numeracy skills to undertake security
qualifications or to work in the industry.”
ASQA emphasises that there are deficiencies in both the training
packages and the qualifications: “There is a deficiency in the
training package, in that it does not explicitly address the risks and
dangers of restraints and the safe use of restraint techniques. The