Safety At Work Blog

The first issues paper on OHS law reform on a national basis in Australia is now available on line at http://www.nationalohsreview.gov.au/ohs/PublicSubmissions/ 

Analysis and comment will be provided over the next few weeks. Please feel free to establish discussions on any elements of the review by commenting at SafetyAtWorkBlog.

At the moment in Australia there are political statements and arguments about the substantially increased workload that the newly-appointed Labor Government is placing on public servants. There are accusations that leaks have occurred from the public service as a protest to the long working hours that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, expects.  Working hours that, it should be said, match those of the Prime Minister.

In The Australian on 30 May 2008, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying

“I understand that there has been some criticism around the edges that some public servants are finding the hours a bit much,” he said. “Well, I suppose I’ve simply got news for the public service — there’ll be more. This Government was elected with a clear-cut mandate. We intend to proceed with that. The work ethic of this Government will not decrease. It will increase.”

The national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union, Steve Jones is reported to have said:

“People are under enormous pressure, subject to massive workloads and ridiculous deadlines, and the rivets are starting to pop; something is going to have to give.”

In a book on work/life balance published in 2003, the author wrote

“As well as doing longer hours, many Australian workers are working harder and faster. …..As competitive pressures on employers intensify, individual workers are loaded up with work obligations which stretch them to the limit. In many occupations, particularly in higher paid professional employment, the ability to bear ridiculous workloads has become a badge of honour. If we examine these arrangements from a relational perspective it should be a mark of shame.”

The author was Lindsay Tanner, now the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in the Kevin Rudd Labor government.  His book is called Crowded Lives

Workplace safety usually gets little attention from mainstream press.  Until recently, with the growth of online specialist content, trade publications covered OHS events, but the lead time made the news events of historical interest more than something that generated enthusiasm or outrage.

Last weekend the Australian Labor Party in Victoria held its annual conference in Melbourne.  The Premier, John Brumby, stated that workplace safety was of continuing high concern to his government.  This comment was reported nowhere other than the Sunday night (25 May 2008 ) news bulletin of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The ABC news website has mentioned other comments that the Premier made at the conference:

“It’s vital for workers and for occupational health and safety representatives that they can raise safety issues without suffering recrimination or discrimination,” he said. “Because if people can’t speak up, then people’s lives can be put at risk.”

The comment is very welcome but why make such a statement now? Has an OHS whistleblowing incident happened recently? No.  Has the issue been a sore political point? No.

Given that neither the ALP or the Premier’s office has released the Premier’s speech almost a week after the event, it can only be assumed that the comments were intended for the union audience at the conference and were said, mainly, to have something to say.

His comments are a reiteration of party policy and any support for OHS is welcome but if anyone makes a positive comment on workplace safety, let them be loud and proud about it.  The OHS profession and worker safety needs the profile.

Over the last few months, the national OHS review panel of Robin Stewart-Crompton, Barry Sherriff and Stephanie Mayman have met with OHS authorities in all the state jurisdictions, various union representatives, and, interestingly, many of the Courts.  The panel also attended the recent ACTU conference.

The issues paper for the review will be released on 30 May 2008, the deadline agreed to in the initial review timetable.

The public comment phase will run to 11 July 2008.  No public hearings are scheduled.  This is disappointing as OHS experts have pointed out that OHS law is probably the only piece of law that workers and managers can readily understand and apply without firstly undertaking a law degree.  This means that there are a lot of “bush lawyers” in OHS in Australia but this also means that there is a greater pool of informed opinion to draw from.

Many OHS professionals and practitioners have a better understanding of the application of this law and should be given an opportunity to address the panel in a public forum,  if for no better reason than it is the best use of their valuable time.  Not everyone who should be heard can devote the necessary time to writing 5,000 word submissions, nor do they have the luxury of being able to charge top dollar on hourly rates for someone else to cover their time.

The national review into OHS law in Australia has started to generate political jostling as individual states start to realise exactly what they may be asked to relinquish.  All government departments and jurisdictions try to maintain their authority, influence and turf and the concern with this OHS review is that it may introduce reforms, or at least tweaks, that could derail the more politically important and controversial changes to industrial relations.

Stephen Sedgwick, director of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, says in the Australian Financial Review on 29 May 2008 that all of the evidence from previous OHS legislative inquiries supports the government’s initiatives for harmonisation and uniformity and the eventual move to a single national OHS Act.  Sedgwick recommends that the review looks at the National Competition Policy wherein incentive payments are linked to the implementation of specific reforms.  This is an excellent suggestion but, like with many good ideas, it will need to find its way through the political will.

Sedgwick identifies a conflict that has occurred previously, in the airline regulatory sector, where one organisation regulates and services an industry sector.  This is a conflict felt by most Australian States where one agency promotes the prevention of workplace injury at the same time as compensating for injuries and illnesses.  By and large, reform of the workers compensation legislation has operated separately from OHS as the motivation for change comes from the insurance sector and related mindsets.  It is less idealistic and more financial.

As organisations begin to prepare for submissions to the national OHS review these issues are beginning to emerge.  How can we make recommendations when we are unsure of whether there will be a single Act or something that accommodates jurisdictional peccadilloes?  Will review of the OHS legislation affect workers’ compensation law?

Many of the key stakeholders are still waiting to be consulted even though the review panel’s timetable says that this will have occurred by now.  It also committed to the production of an issues paper by the end of May 2008 so that the formal submissions and hearings process can begin.  Not keeping to this timeline may indicate that this is another inquiry where timelines are extended, hopes are deflated, and recommendations lead nowhere.

In an AAP report on 21 May 2008, the Tasmanian coroner has been highly critical of the OHS legislative regime applicable to Tasmanian mines.  His comments have particular relevance during Australia’s national review of OHS law and as the coronial inquest into the Beaconsfield mining disaster is due to start within the next six months.

One report paraphrased Coroner Don Johnson to say

to achieve appropriate standards of safety there needed to be a well-resourced, amply qualified regulatory authority invested with the power to ensure that mines operate to a standard expected in workplaces.

The implication here is that the current regulatory body was inadequately resourced.

Tasmania’s Minister for Planning and Workplace Relations, David Bartlett, has issued a media release that downplays the Coroner’s criticism by saying that the government and Workplace Standards were already on the front foot for change. 

At the hearing into the Renison mine incident, it has been reported that “the Chief Inspector of Mines, Fred Sears, told the hearing safety regulations could be vastly improved. He said his office is under-resourced, and often too busy to conduct routine inspections.”

Coincidentally, the ex-CEO of RailCorp, Vince Graham, gave evidence to New South Wales’ Independent Commission Against Corruption this week.  According to one report

He told the Sydney inquiry that addressing safety was the top priority at that time – and issues of corruption were not given adequate attention.

It seems in business, it is not only the lack of resources but where the available resources are directed, that makes a safe and accountable safety management system.

There has been a bit of media attention lately on the risks of nanotechnology to the workers who use the technology and to the people who wear socks that contain the technology.  NPR’s Day-To-Day program for May 21 provides a useful summary of the latest findings on the OHS issues of nanotechnology.  The podcast and transcript is available at NPR

The Australian government has established an Australian Social Inclusion Board.  This is what the government says is the purpose and challenges of the Board:

This social exclusion is a significant barrier to sustained prosperity and restricts Australia’s future economic growth.

Promoting social inclusion requires a new way of governing. Australia must rethink how policy and programs across portfolios and levels of government can work together to combat economic and social disadvantage.

The Australian Social Inclusion Board which brings together leaders from around the country, will be instrumental in meeting this challenge.

Tackling disadvantage involves generating effective, practical solutions at the level of government, local communities, of service providers, employers and of families and individuals themselves.

The Australian Social Inclusion Board will consult widely and provide views and advice to the Government.

I am glad that consultation will be broad.  Narrow consultation, even in a tripartite structure, is often found to be too narrow and anti-inclusion.  It is acknowledged that as good as broad consultation is, change and influence comes from having a seat at the table.  I find it disappointing that an independent voice for occupational safety and health is not at the table given the higher rate of death and injury in workplaces of young workers, workers from outside Australia and workers with a poor command of the English language.

It would have been good to see the Australian government look beyond an artificial demarcation of work and non-work.  The OHS profession and OHS legislation dumped this demarcation several years ago when we started to deal with psycho-social hazards in the workplace and the impact of workplace hazards on non-work activities.

If there is not a seat at the table, given that the Minister for Social Inclusion is also the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and that the board’s Chair, Ms Patricia Faulkner  had an OHS role in the early 1990’s, I would expect safety (both occupational and non-occupational) to be a fixture on the board’s agenda.

The argy-bargy about uniformity of OHS legislation continued this week and, again, stems from issues in New South Wales.

According to a report in the Australian Financial Review on May 19 2008 (sorry there is no hyperlink, Fairfax Media insists of payment for online AFR content), the CEO of the National Road Transport Operator’s Association , Bernard Belacic said

the reality is for an employer in the trucking industry, we’ve got a raft of regulations to comply with.  In NSW, we’ve got four different [driver] fatigue regimes.  As an employer, even as a driver…..which one do you comply with?
Let’s not get silly about duplicating efforts and creating further layers of regulation. If safety isn’t addressed properly through the OH&S framework, well, let’s fix that.

He was responding to the ACTU’s desire to have OHS incorporated into the NSW industrial awards for negotiation.

I agree that additional levels of legislation and regulation are probably not required however several trucking companies are continuing their swap to the national worker’s compensation system, permission for which was squeaked in before the Howard Government was voted out.  I cannot understand why the companies would want to continue with this action when further moves from the state to federal systems have been frozen, the OHS regulatory system is under government review, and such action would be inflammatory and very possibly short-term.

Many companies put a great store in worker’s compensation, probably because it is so expensive.  But I judge a company’s commitment to it’s workforce on the basis of injury prevention not compensation. 

Below are some publicly-available infoation on the latest companies moving to the Comcare system:

• TNT ,
• Fleetmaster Services and
• Transpacific Industries

The Queensland government has responded to the assessment reports on staff housing which includes the housing in remote locations.  The initiatives are good for the most part but it has to be noted that the motivation for action came from foreseeable, unjustified attacks on workers in isolated locations.  The safety status of the accommodation was proven to be inadequate by physical attacks on staff.  Teacher and nursing unions have stated that the workplaces were unsafe and may have breached OHS legislation and employer obligations.

The Australian newspaper on 16 May 2008 reported, in relation to the February 2008 burglary and rape, that the next day the nurse’s supervisors told her to return to work and to forget about what happened.

“Queensland Health refused to authorise a Medivac helicopter to bring her to Thursday Island for treatment, and eventually her boyfriend had to charter an aircraft to collect her and take her to safety”.

Queensland’s Health Minister, Stephen Robertson, mentioned additional recommendations from the audit report but only said that these would be considered.  These were

Development of minimum standards for staff accommodation;

Queensland Fire and Rescue Service to conduct fire safety inspections on all multi-staff accommodation of six people or more which had not been uniformly implemented across the State;

Review Queensland Health’s ongoing ownership and management of staff accommodation with a view to considering the engagement of a third party to have this responsibility. In addition, a review should also assess Queensland Health’s total accommodation asset base to determine retention, disposal, reinvestment and upgrade strategies; and

Development of a strategy for ongoing inspection and maintenance.

The full text of the media statement is available HERE.

The Queensland OHS regulator provides some basic information on workplace amenities but surprisingly, there is nothing specifically on remote area housing. 

The Victorian government has recently circulated a draft compliance code on workplace amenities. It includes the following relevant infomaiton:

Employer-provided accommodation

Employees working in regional and remote areas are often required to make use of employer-provided accommodation. Examples of these arrangements are where accommodation is provided for remote or seasonal work such as mining, hospitality, shearing or fruit picking.

How to comply
The accommodation needs to be separated from any hazards at the workplace likely to present a risk to the health or safety of an employee using the accommodation. The facilities also need to meet the following standards:

• there is safe access and egress, and security of personal possessions
• fire safety arrangements are in place
• electrical safety standards are implemented
• drinking water is available
• there are appropriate toilets, as well as washing, bathing and laundry facilities
• procedures are in place to ensure cleanliness
• suitable sleeping accommodation is provided, ensuring noise is reduced so far as is reasonably practicable
• crockery, utensils and dining facilities are available
• rubbish is collected
• heating, cooling and ventilation meet the standard of workplaces
• adequate lighting is available
• there are storage cupboards and other appropriate furniture
• a refrigerator or coolroom is provided
• the accommodation meets all relevant structural and stability requirements, and
• the fittings, appliances and any other equipment supplied are maintained in good repair.