Australia’s ABCC argument is not about safety

Australia’s Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is on a pathway to an election.  On March 21 2016, the Prime Minister wrote to the Governor-General to continue a convoluted process sparked by the Senate’s refusal to pass laws that will allow the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).  One of the justifications for the need to pass the laws is to improve workplace safety, as in the excerpt below for the Prime Minsiter’s letter.  This position is unjustified.

Turnbull safety GG

Bernard Keane wrote in the Crikey newsletter (paywalled) on March 22 2016:

“Under the Howard-era ABCC, workplace fatalities in the construction sector rose from just over three per 100,000 workers to nearly five per 100,000 workers before falling again to around four. After the “neutering” of the ABCC, the fatality rate fell to just over two. Getting rid of the ABCC coincided with a significant fall in the number of workers being killed on building sites.”

The reason for the statistical change is not clear but one could posit that union Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) may have been able to relax from an Industrial Relations fight to focussing on their original OHS role of site safety monitoring and education.

The trade union movement has also claimed that a reason to oppose the ABCC is workplace safety but this also is not the case. The trade unions are advocating for the continued role of union HSRs, part of whose duties is identifying and fixing workplace hazards.  Safety is not the issue, enforcement of safety is the issue and this is the role of the HSR and the crux of the trade union objections.

A complication to the union objections comes from the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption (TURC) that has identified many cases where union HSRs and Organisers have muddied OHS and Industrial Relations issues into site visits that were allegedly generated over OHS concerns.  Australia’s Conservative Government has used the TURC findings to justify the reintroduction of the ABCC.  Trade unions dispute the legitimacy of the Royal Commission.

At the moment, in Australia, OHS is a classic example of the political football.  And no one seems to be sticking up for the football.

The relatives of workers have a belief in the intrinsic worth of OHS.  Without OHS and the laws and the enforcement, the public believes that, workplace deaths, injuries and illnesses, will increase.  Workers need OHS to be seen as in the interest of, and for, the workers, rather than big business, government or trade unions.

Industrial relations was always going to be a major part of the Federal election that was due to occur sometime in late 2016 but both political extremes are misrepresenting OHS for their own political purposes.  This potential was always possible but now is the time to ask who will defend OHS against this political abuse?

Kevin Jones

 

9 thoughts on “Australia’s ABCC argument is not about safety”

  1. The problem for industry in bringing safety into productivity is that, ‘ safety’ is in ‘parallel’, and so is treated as if it is a ‘product’.

    What is being called ‘safety’ has to be put ‘In-Series’ through industry as well a regulation and legislation.

    Safety is in ‘parallel and continues to be, by those currently reviewing and those using it in practice. This continuation on parallelism has also made safety a ‘product’. This situation is evidenced by the appointment of a ‘ safety manager’ and/or ‘safety advisors’.

    The fact that safety is in parallel immediately creates great risk, increased likelihood of incidents, and a blame game between workers and management, and within management.

    This misuse of safety intent and purpose will continue to generate risk exposure where ever it is practiced.

    It is the system of parallelism that is the issue here, and the indoctrination of all into that system.

    This has to change as it is not doing anyone any good, and unfortunately lives are at risk.

  2. What saddens me is that the greatest motivator for the Royal Commission and hence the ABCC is simply the CFMEU. While all parties including employer organisations and ACTU, VTHC etc can’t work together to rid society of this abomination (or alternately rid the CFMEU of the thugs and the Bikie connections that have too much power) I cannot understand.

  3. Cannot agree with the statement “…enforcement of safety is the issue and this is the role of the HSR…”. It is not the role or intent of the Victorian OHS Act 2004 Section 58 “(3) Nothing in this Act or the regulations imposes, or is to be taken to impose, a function or duty on a health and safety representative in that capacity.” It is the role of the employer to enforce safety measures in consultation with the HSR.

    1. Graeme, I am not in a position to argue against you quoting the OHS Act but I would make the point that it is definitely the construction union’s perspective that it is the union-appointed HSR who establishes and monitors safety on work sites.

      I would quote the example of Grocon sites where the union seems to contest the safety processes, and even the safety obligations, of the employers.

      1. Kevin then the unions are wrong. The way I see HSR responsibilities are to simply consult with the workers and raise with management (employers) any issues regarding OHS only. I am a staunch unionist and always support workers rights.

  4. I suppose that “… one could posit that union Health and Safety Representatives (HSRs) may have been able to relax from an Industrial Relations fight to focussing on their original OHS role of site safety monitoring and education”, but it seems to me to be a long stretch in the absence of any evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.