❓ A parliamentary question regarding a pro forma letter sent by the Department of Training and Workforce Development to trainees, perceived as heavy-handed and potentially contributing to a decline in traineeships. The Minister acknowledges the issue and states the letter has been amended.
AnsweredQoN 879Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF TRAINING AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT —
PRO FORMA LETTER — TRAINEES
879. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Leader
of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development:
I refer to an undated pro forma
letter from the Department of Training and Workforce Development sent to
trainees about their training contract, which advises new trainees that failure
to sign a complying training plan within six weeks after the trainee and the
employer have signed a training contract or within the probation period for
this training contract, whichever is longer, may result in a fine of $5 000.
(1) Why has the Barnett government
adopted such a heavy-handed approach with new trainees?
(2) Can the
minister rule out that this unnecessary ham-fisted approach is not a major
contributing factor to the drastic drop in traineeships across WA?
(3) Will the
minister now apologise for sending this truly awful letter to trainees, who are
finding it difficult enough to get a start without being threatened by the very
people who are supposed to support and encourage them?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
PRO FORMA LETTER — TRAINEES
879. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Leader
of the House representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development:
I refer to an undated pro forma
letter from the Department of Training and Workforce Development sent to
trainees about their training contract, which advises new trainees that failure
to sign a complying training plan within six weeks after the trainee and the
employer have signed a training contract or within the probation period for
this training contract, whichever is longer, may result in a fine of $5 000.
(1) Why has the Barnett government
adopted such a heavy-handed approach with new trainees?
(2) Can the
minister rule out that this unnecessary ham-fisted approach is not a major
contributing factor to the drastic drop in traineeships across WA?
(3) Will the
minister now apologise for sending this truly awful letter to trainees, who are
finding it difficult enough to get a start without being threatened by the very
people who are supposed to support and encourage them?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the Leader of the
House, I thank the member for some notice of the question. The following
information has been provided to him by the Minister for Training and Workforce
Development —
(1) It is
important to inform apprentices, trainees and employers of their rights and
obligations under the training contract and legislation. The quoted section of
the letter refers to the requirements for training plans as set out in
regulation 43 of the Vocational Education and Training (General) Regulations
2009. The version of the letter in question was used for a period of two months
before the Department of Training and Workforce Development acknowledged it
required amendment and was subsequently changed on 18 July 2014 to remove
reference to the offence and penalty.
(2) There is no
evidence to support the proposition that trainees have withdrawn from training
contracts as a result of the letter.
(3)–(4) The
ApprentiCentre, which is run by the Department of Training and Workforce
Development, provides information and support for all trainees who have
questions about any departmental correspondence and their obligations under a
training contract.
The version of the letter referred to
by the member is no longer being used by the department.
House, I thank the member for some notice of the question. The following
information has been provided to him by the Minister for Training and Workforce
Development —
(1) It is
important to inform apprentices, trainees and employers of their rights and
obligations under the training contract and legislation. The quoted section of
the letter refers to the requirements for training plans as set out in
regulation 43 of the Vocational Education and Training (General) Regulations
2009. The version of the letter in question was used for a period of two months
before the Department of Training and Workforce Development acknowledged it
required amendment and was subsequently changed on 18 July 2014 to remove
reference to the offence and penalty.
(2) There is no
evidence to support the proposition that trainees have withdrawn from training
contracts as a result of the letter.
(3)–(4) The
ApprentiCentre, which is run by the Department of Training and Workforce
Development, provides information and support for all trainees who have
questions about any departmental correspondence and their obligations under a
training contract.
The version of the letter referred to
by the member is no longer being used by the department.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.