❓ Hon Alison Xamon inquires about changes to a training provider forum presentation, the Nous Group's model recommendation, and the composition of the Entitlement Model Working Group. The Minister responds with details on Commonwealth funding shortfalls, the recommended model, and the selection process for the working group.
AnsweredQoN 6291Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to my questions on notice No. 5579 and No. 5814 in relation to the presentation delivered at the Training Providers Forum, and I ask —
(1) What information has changed since the presentation was given? Please provide details.
(2) Which of the four theoretical models did Nous Group consultants recommend?
(3) How were the representatives of the Entitlement Model Working Group chosen?
(4) Why did/does the Entitlement Model Working Group have only one State Training Provider representative?
(1) What information has changed since the presentation was given? Please provide details.
(2) Which of the four theoretical models did Nous Group consultants recommend?
(3) How were the representatives of the Entitlement Model Working Group chosen?
(4) Why did/does the Entitlement Model Working Group have only one State Training Provider representative?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
13 November 2012
Responded by
Minister for Education representing the Minister for Training and Workforce Development
Response time
26 days
(1) Based on changes to the Commonwealth cash-flows, the estimated Commonwealth shortfall under the National Partnership for Skills Reform has been revised to $72.8m over the next four years.
(2) Based on the assessment criteria used in the report, the Nous Group recommended conceptual design III. The Department of Training and Workforce Development has used this conceptual model as a starting point for further development of the design of an entitlement model, however the Government has yet to consider or endorse any proposed model.
(3) The Department of Training and Workforce Development selected the working group representatives based on their expertise and relevance to the project.
(4) One state training provider representative was considered adequate to represent the interests of all state training providers. The views from all state training providers were sought throughout the process.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) Based on the assessment criteria used in the report, the Nous Group recommended conceptual design III. The Department of Training and Workforce Development has used this conceptual model as a starting point for further development of the design of an entitlement model, however the Government has yet to consider or endorse any proposed model.
(3) The Department of Training and Workforce Development selected the working group representatives based on their expertise and relevance to the project.
(4) One state training provider representative was considered adequate to represent the interests of all state training providers. The views from all state training providers were sought throughout the process.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.