Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Listening to the contributions from the member for Farrer I understand a lot of her experiences, particularly of smaller organisations, drive some of her comments but I think the debate would probably also benefit—if I could put it that way—from perspectives of large organisations with HSRs operating in designated work groups across corporations. In particular, one that I am familiar with, that I made reference to in my contributions last night, is Australia Post where the training courses that were provided had to go through a formalised method of approval and then be rolled out across an organisation that has close to 40,000 employees dealing in situations where there are significant health and safety risks that have to be worked through.

I can tell you from their experiences HSRs do not always feel that they are in a powerful situation where they are able to completely shut down work and where provisional improvement notices, PINs, are taken very seriously and people recognise that it is not simply a case of filling out a form and flicking an off switch but that they do have to be very mindful about what that entails. There have been concerns, particularly in large corporations, where corporations do undertake difficult work or do bring in new methods of work where HSRs have been pressured into not moving to activate a PIN notice. Another concern, which I raised last night and which I hope the minister at the table or at the dispatch box will take into consideration, is that HSRs have an inability in some cases to investigate certain issues in exercising their powers under the Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act. In particular, Australia Post have an overhang of their overriding legislation under the Australian Postal Corporation Act where they are able to bring in principle determinations involving employee conditions. Principle determinations that have been used, I would argue, to the detriment of Australia Post employees have involved the use of facility nominated doctors. These doctors have been used to circumvent people's access to a GP when they have been injured at work—that is, the employee cannot exercise their right under previous arrangements exercised by Australia Post to go to their own GP; they were forced to go to a company doctor. HSRs were not able to examine this system of workplace injuries and to improve workplace process due to the fact that the principle determination exists outside the OH&S Act.

This oversight, legislatively induced, operates to the disadvantage of employees. It is something that needs to be picked up, because the OH&S Act does not allow for HSRs to investigate whether or not principle determinations may be detrimentally applying to people's health and safety in the workplace. This is a serious issue that has not been picked up and needs to be addressed. As was indicated in my contribution last night, the Commonwealth will no longer be able to have immunity from people taking up cases in terms of OH&S law. They certainly have a GBE in the form of Australia Post that exercises outside the OH&S Act in the way that it applies principle determinations. I would certainly ask the minister representing the minister in the other place, to take up the issue of a conflict between principle determinations and the OH&S Act, because I think there are workers who are employed by GBEs who are working in situations that are detrimental to their health and safety.

See this speech in context