The legal commentaries have begun to appear following the release of Australia’s draft Work Health & Safety Act.
One of the first, as usual, is a response from law firm Deacons. It should be noted before discussing the suggestions that in the last couple of months Australia’s OHS legal brains are now concentrated in this law firm since Barry Sherriff jumped ship from Freehills. A month or two earlier, Sherriff’s protegé, Penny Stephens, left the firm and took several others with her to Hall & Willcox. This brain drain sets Freehills’ OHS practice back considerably.
However, Deacon’s first missive on the new OHS laws has been released, under the bylines of Sherriff & Tooma, and identifies several issues. The first, and very useful to know, is the definition of due diligence that is now included in the Act under Duty of Officers:
“…due diligence means to take reasonable steps:
(a) to acquire and keep up to date knowledge of work health and safety matters; and
(b) to gain an understanding of the nature of the operations of the business or undertaking of the body and generally of the hazards and risks associated with those operations; and
(c) to ensure that the body has available for use, and uses, appropriate resources and processes to enable hazards associated with the operations of the business or undertaking of the body to be identified and risks associated with those hazards to be eliminated or minimised; and
(d) to ensure that the body has appropriate processes for receiving and considering information regarding incidents, hazards and risks and responding in a timely way to that information; and
(e) to ensure that the body has, and implements, processes for complying with any duty or obligation of the body under this Act; and
A body’s duties or obligations under this Act may include:
- reporting notifiable incidents.
- consulting with workers.
- ensuring compliance with notices issued under this Act.
- ensuring the provision of training and instruction to workers about work health and safety.
- ensuring that health and safety representatives receive their entitlements to training.
(f) to verify the provision and use of the resources and processes referred to in paragraphs (c) to (e).”
This should provide more tips to OHS professional associations about where their services fit in general business obligations but it also sets the bar much higher for professionals in how they must upgrade their own OHS skills to match expectations.
Curiously, Deacons continues with issues of concern with the Act which have little to do with improving worker safety. Several items hark back to the OHS Model Act Review Panel which has little more than historical interest nowadays but may reflect the fact that Barry Sherriff was a Review Panel member. The list of concerns further supports SafetyAtWorkBlog’s position that safety law often masquerades as safety management.
Deacons concludes its update with the following “7 steps”:
“There are 7 steps that every business needs to undertake to prepare for this new era in Work Health and Safety regulation:
- Legal risk analysis…
- Review contracts …
- Implement interface coordination plans …
- Develop robust consultation processes …
- Develop dispute resolution processes …
- Develop processes on right of entry and regulatory rights and obligations …
- Develop an OHS Corporate Governance Statement …”
Unsurprisingly, the first two involve assistance from one’s legal advisers. SafetyAtWorkBlog recommends that businesses wait and see what support documentation is supplied by the OHS regulators first as it is they who determine the parameters for OHS compliance.
Businesses need to remember that the Work Health & Safety Act is not yet law and, in fact, has a long way to go before States introduces this law into their own jurisdictions. Western Australia is still objecting to the law so it is unclear if this Act will ever be introduced without substantial change. So until then keep following the local OHS legislation but keep both ears open in anticipation of the future.