Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2):

(1)   Schedule 2, page 14 (line 29), omit "12 months", insert "3 years".

(2)   Schedule 2, item 10, page 14 (after line 31), at the end of the item, add:

(3)   For the period of 3 years after the commencement day, the following courses of training will be taken to be covered by paragraphs 72(1)(a) to (c) of the WHS Act:

  (a)   courses that were accredited under the 2006/2007 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission's "Guidelines for the Accreditation of Occupational Health and Safety training courses for Health and Safety Representatives";

  (b)   courses that were accredited under the 2010 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission's "Guidelines—Health and Safety Representatives training in the Commonwealth jurisdiction", and any later Guidelines for Accreditation of Occupational Health and Safety training courses for Health and Safety Representatives (as amended from time to time).

(4)   Subitem (3) applies only in relation to courses covered by paragraphs (a) and (b) of that item whose content is updated to reflect legislation in force at the time.

The coalition's amendments to this bill concern training in occupational health and safety. The training of health and safety representatives is a key aspect of implementing existing workplace health and safety, particularly in moving to the new harmonised system that we are discussing in the House today.

The way this works is that the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, an agency under the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, is responsible and has delegated the responsibility for the accreditation of training to Comcare, as I understand. Comcare from time to time issues guidelines about what the accreditation will rely on. The bodies we are talking about are the training providers. The coalition's concerns are about the number of training providers and the fact that there seems to be a tightening of those accreditation provisions from the guidelines that were issued in 2006-07 and the guidelines that were issued in 2010. The guidelines on the commission's website make the point that health and safety representatives play a key role in improving health and safety in the workplace by ensuring that OH&S issues concerning members of the designated work group are communicated to the appropriate person for resolution. The role and powers of HSRs and the requirement for them to undertake a course of training relating to OH&S are outlined in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The act provides that the training must be provided through a course that is accredited by the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.

When we look at the people's opportunities for training, it is important that these are as wide as possible. The concerns expressed in a submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee inquiry into this legislation were that the availability of training has dropped quite substantially. This paragraph from the submission sums up the concerns we have:

Training in occupational health and safety is always an important issue. At this time of transition to new arrangements the availability of courses is vital. Unfortunately the availability of accredited courses has been reduced by 26% since restrictive changes were introduced by the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission in 2010. In order to facilitate transition and ensure the availability of training courses, a transition enabling the continuance of courses accredited under the 2006/2007 guidelines should be provided …

The amendment we are moving is that we continue to provide the opportunities for those that were previously accredited to be training providers.

I went in search of where this initiative came from. I am not certain that I found it—perhaps the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations can illuminate the House—but rather breezily Comcare said new guidelines have been initiated in response to feedback from health and safety representatives in the workplace. Maybe that feedback is fine, but I would like people in considering this amendment to be aware that health and safety representatives in the workplace have a lot of power. In fact, they have considerable power under the 1991 OH&S Act. They can inspect the workplace, accompany an investigator during an investigation, represent members of the designated work group in health and safety consultations with employers, investigate complaints, initiate emergency stop-work procedures and issue a provisional improvement notice.

Madam Deputy Speaker Bird, you may know that I spent some years working as a shearers cook in western Queensland and New South Wales. We had HSR people there although they did not have such a fancy name. As a shearers cook, in the morning, somebody would make their way into the kitchen and say: 'Is everything okay, cookie? If a tin opener is not completely operational, the boys won't start and if you're worried any blowflies will get in the kitchen, the boys won't start.' I thought I had a lot of power over when the shearing commenced. Minister Crean mentioned the weight of wool bales. Unfortunately the HSR people were not able to prevent me from getting a hernia from pulling very heavy wool bales and the hernia had to be operated on. That is another story, but the point is that power that somebody in OH&S has over a workplace.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What year was that?

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not an entirely appropriate question. The point is nobody was enforcing the safety provision concerning the weight of wool bales, but this is a discussion for another time. I do not want to cast aspersions on elements that may be controlling the types of people providing the training to the health and safety representatives who have the power to shut down workplaces, but I think that that training is vital. It is vital that that training be provided by as wide a range of organisations as possible. There is no problem with unions being represented in that line-up of training providers, but the coalition is concerned about the number of training providers. I think I found 13 bodies on the website, a 26 per cent drop in people providing training. This means the guidelines are very difficult to comply with and there is a bureaucratic maze in them. We are moving a sensible amendment that, at this time of transition, we continue with the accreditation of those 2006-07 providers. I do hope members will support me on that.

I know this is a debate on amendments, but in good faith I want to bring up one issue that I would like Minister Crean to hear, recognising that he represents the minister in the other place. This issue is the role of voluntary organisations. I am sure that members of this place all support their volunteers. We know what a great job they do. The senators on the committee were disturbed that there is still no clarification of the extent to which the Work Health and Safety Bill will apply to voluntary organisations. I take the minister's earlier point that we need to have the model laws in place then we will move to the tightening up or finalising of the draft regulations. It is absolutely critical that those regulations contain clear instructions to volunteer organisations. Obviously, we do not want them to be outside the provisions of OH&S but at the same time we do not want to load up our volunteer boards with incredibly onerous provisions. It is something that I know all members of this House would support. I thank the House.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We oppose both of these amendments. The effect of the first one is to increase the transition period for training from 12 months, which is in the bill, to three years. The second one is effectively deeming training courses previously approved by the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission as accredited courses without the need necessarily to update. Let me deal with them in sequence and then I have a note on the volunteers, so I will briefly refer to that.

The government recognises a transition period is required for health and safety representatives to complete updated training on the new work health and safety laws. The current bill allows 12 months after which time, if representatives have not completed updated training, they will no longer be able to exercise their powers under the Work Health and Safety Act to issue provisional improvement notices and to direct that work cease. A period of 12 months is consistent with nationally agreed principles for transition to the new laws and strikes a balance between smooth transition and recognition that new laws mean some changes and updated training is required. I am unclear as to why the opposition is seeking to extend the period to three years while at the same time seeking to expand the pool of training courses recognised under the new regime beyond even those accredited under current arrangements.

The second amendment proposed by the opposition would allow training providers whose accreditation may have lapsed some years ago to provide training under the new laws without having to satisfy the current guidelines issued by the commission or any future guidelines developed and agreed by OH&S regulators. The Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission is currently responsible for the accreditation of training courses for health and safety reps under the current Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act. To assist training providers they have established clear guidelines for the accreditation of training courses.

The intention is for training courses that are currently accredited under the Occ Health and Safety Act to be recognised on a transitional basis following commencement of the new work health and safety laws to ensure the continued availability of courses. The accreditation process is an important safeguard to ensure health and safety representatives receive quality training at this vital time as we transition to the new laws. The government does not support an amendment that seeks to override decisions made by the independent Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission under the current OH&S Act. The proposed amendment would grant accreditation to training providers that do not hold current accreditation under the current guidelines issued by the SRCC in 2010 but which held accreditation under previous guidelines in regard to HSR training and undermine the integrity of the accreditation process.

If I can have the indulgence to deal with the volunteer question, the bill strikes a balance between protecting volunteers in the workplace whilst also not discouraging voluntary participation. Under the model work laws workers who are volunteers are afforded the same protection as any other workers. This is an important protection and ensures that volunteers are not treated differently to employees and contractors who are engaged in the same workplace. While the application of the bill to volunteer associations is not directly relevant to this debate because the Commonwealth bill before us today will only apply to Commonwealth public authorities and for a transitional period non-Commonwealth licensees, the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Bill does form part of a national scheme of harmonised work health and safety laws that recognise that there are some voluntary organisations that do not have health and safety duties. There are groups of volunteers working together for community purposes who do not employ any person to carry out work for the volunteer organisation who would not be covered by the laws. The engagement of contractors for one-off jobs, for example to audit the accounts or drive a bus for a day trip, will not affect a volunteer association's status. However, if a volunteer association has employees then it will owe health and safety duties to all workers including any volunteers who engage in the work of the organisation. (Extension of time granted) An officer who is a volunteer will have the duty to exercise due diligence but cannot be prosecuted as an individual for failing to do so. This is designed to not discourage voluntary participation as officers. We are opposed to the two amendments for the reasons I have outlined.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the bill be agreed to, to which the member for Farrer has moved amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in her name. The question therefore before the House at the moment is that the amendments be agreed to. Does the member for Chifley seek to make a contribution?

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

I made a number of points that I was hoping the minister at the table would take up in reference to principle determinations as they apply outside the OH&S Act.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I of course will take them up on his behalf. The House divided. [13:08]

(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.