Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

As I understand it, this issue actually predates harmonisation but I am happy to explore it in this context, as I can understand that for some providers it is bringing things to a fine point. It goes back to the guidelines about delivery of training and, as you have indicated, the decision that was made by the SRCC on those guidelines.

I am going to explore this partly from personal experience, and that is that there is some training that is obviously appropriate for online delivery but there are some training components that are not regarded as appropriate for online delivery. Certainly many university courses structure a compromise between the two, but the difficulty as I understand it with these guidelines is the requirement that a trainee attend. From my somewhat dated understanding of health and safety training courses, the training that deals with developing skills on negotiation with some level of role-play and experiential training is an important component. But to put a finer point on that would be relying more on my experience than what may have informed the SRCC's decision on how they proceeded in this instance.

The government recognises that a transition period is required for health and safety representatives to complete updated training on the new work health and safety laws. The bill currently allows 12 months for them to do so, after which time, if they 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. This is addressing item 1 of these amendments.

The period of 12 months is consistent with nationally agreed principles for the transition to the new laws and strikes a balance between a smooth transition and recognition that new laws mean some changes and updated training is required. It is unclear why the opposition is seeking to extend to three years the period for which previous training is recognised while at the same time seeking to expand the pool of training courses recognised under the new regime beyond those accredited under current arrangements.

With respect to item 2, 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 occupational health and safety regulators. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission is currently responsible for the accreditation of training courses for health and safety representatives 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 Occupational 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. Consequently, the Commonwealth does not support an amendment which seeks to override decisions made by the independent Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission under the current Occupational Health and Safety Act. The proposed amendment would grant accreditation to training providers who do not hold current accreditation under the current guidelines issued by the SRCC in 2010 but who held accreditation under previous guidelines for health and safety representative training. In doing so, the proposed amendment would undermine the integrity of the accreditation process. With respect to the particular training provider you referred to, my understanding is that he has chosen not to seek accreditation under the current arrangements.