62 / 116
62 E L EC TR I C AL CONNEC T I ON
SUMME R 20 1 6
LICENCE TO CHANGE
T
he training of future tradespeople
in our industry has undergone
many changes, yet one aspect
is constant: progression through to being
qualified is based on time.
There are modules and, in some
states, ‘capstone’ assessments
(university language for ‘final exam’).
However, you don’t gain a licence in our
industry without being an apprentice
for a set time.
Over the years, education
bureaucracy geniuses (and a former
federal employment minister) have
railed at me that our industry must
move with the times and not become
a dinosaur. We should allow entrants
to progress through to the final
qualification based on their ability to
complete modules only – also known as
competency-based progression.
Our system is broadly based on the
principle that apprenticeship modules
be completed in conjunction with on-site
experience. This allows apprentices to
enhance their knowledge with useful
practical experience.
Critics outside the industry will cite
other trades and professions that
don’t tie their training to real-world
experience. My response is that there
are only three days between a bad
haircut and a good one. You could train
hairdressers in a classroom only, and not
many buildings would burn down if they
got something wrong.
Other responses could be: do we allow
pilots to learn only in a classroom then
give them a licence?; do we allow brain
surgeons to practise in a classroom then
let them loose on patients unassisted?
Yet there are many potential changes
our industry should be open to, and
there have been many reviews into the
apprenticeship system.
The issues have had substantial
government money spent on them
over many years. Reports have been
generated, and they are probably
sitting on someone’s desk. Some of the
matters are:
>
Entry and exit points of the training
system.
>
Module suitability for industry needs.
>
Number of modules.
>
Competency-based progression.
>
Industry surveys on the suitability of
apprenticeship.
>
Direct apprenticeships versus group
training.
>
Reasons for dropping out.
It is our industry. We ought to
determine how we train and develop
people. No one cares more about our
industry and its future than we do. Can
government and training bureaucrats
really know better?
However, we must accept that our new
tradespeople be familiarised with the
new technologies they will face in their
early careers.
Here is an issue: our licensed people are
among the worst for post-apprenticeship
training or continuing development. Once
we get the licence we generally lean on
our training for the rest of our working
lives. Can we continue with that mindset?
Last month at the Integrate Expo
in Sydney I was struck by how close
our electrical contracting industry
is becoming to the audio visual and
home automation sectors. We need to
understand and embrace these other
sectors and the technology.
These sectors are no longer on
the fringe. There are many specialists,
but mainstream electrical contractors
need to expand their skills and
service offerings.
This brings me to my main point: are we
mature enough to allow new technologies
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
MUST BE TRAINED IN NEW
TECHNOLOGY OR RISK BEING
RELEGATED TO A LOWER STATUS.
WESMCKNIGHT
EXPLAINS.
MCKNIGHT ON THE TOWN