Download Fragment

Thursday, 24 November 2011
Page: 9585

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (20:05): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7157 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, 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, or under any later guidelines issued by the Commission 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.

We are dealing with the Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011. Training in occupational health and safety is always an important issue and at this time of transition to new arrangements the availability of courses is vital. Unfortunately, the availability of accredited courses has been reduced by this bill by some 26 per cent since restrictive changes were introduced. In order to facilitate transition and ensure the availability of training courses, the coalition is putting forward these amendments to enable the continuance of courses accredited in 2006-07. The changes made by the government support union training at the expense of a private provider, with no beneficial outcomes whatsoever.

Can I repeat that which I pursued at Senate estimates. There is a particular provider that I have in mind that has delivered work health and safety training to a very high standard to Commonwealth departments and agencies that have written back to this provider complimenting him on his high standards of training and saying that the outcomes were exceptionally good. Yet he will no longer be allowed to provide that training methodology.

You have to ask the question: why? Is this all about process or is it about outcomes? Surely in developing courses and training the one issue ought be: what is the outcome? Will the workers, after their training, be able to deliver the work health and safety, and understand the issues in their workplace? Commonwealth agencies and departments have said: 'Yes, the particular training pro­vided by this trainer has been exceptionally good. The people who have been trained have complimented the scheme.' Yet now it can no longer be taught because the teaching methodology is deemed to be inappropriate; it does not fit the one-size-fits-all approach.

Another thing that I am absolutely gobsmacked by is the fact that internet training will not be allowed either. In this day of the NBN and all the rest that Senator Conroy bangs on about day after day in this Senate, training has to be face to face. That is one of the real issues: if you can get your training for a university degree and other things over the internet, why on earth can't you get work health safety training also over the internet? Can I indicate that the trainer of which I was speaking before is not necessarily in that space, but I can imagine innovative trainers might be developing packages going down that track. This ham-fisted, one-size-fits-all approach is designed basically to support one particular group of providers. It seems to me that there has to be a detailed explanation provided to this committee. I have pursued it at Senate estimates and I think at one stage—

Senator Jacinta Collins: You'll have more luck there than with me here.

Senator ABETZ: Senator Collins, do not sell yourself short, because you could not, even if you tried your hardest, do worse than the non-answers we got at Senate estimates in relation to this. We had certain people complaining that we had put about 200-plus questions on notice about these issues and then all we get is: 'Well, the decision is the decision because it is the decision, and that is the reason why—because it is decision—and people looked at the decision and confirmed the decision.'

But when you then ask, 'What is the decision and what is the public policy reason behind the decision?' it is, 'Well, this body made the decision.' That is not a sufficient explanation, especially when somebody who has been delivering an excellent service has been cut out of the marketplace in this manner. That person's name is well known; it is Dr John Culvenor. Why should he and the way he does business be cut out of the marketplace, especially when he has got accolades from Commonwealth departments and agencies? It still defies any logic, any explanation, other than somebody has tapped somebody on the shoulder to say, 'If we can get rid of this exceptionally good provider it might open up the marketplace for us to provide that training service and charge for it.' I just wonder whether certain trade unions might be seeing a potential market opening for themselves.