Last week, The Weekly Times, a prominent Australian agriculture newspaper, reported on some peculiar behaviours by farmers and quad bike owners. Under laws introduced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, removing vital occupational health and safety (OHS) operator protection devices is permissible. Why would farmers remove a critical safety device and endanger themselves and others?
Recently, Lisa Ronson died in a vehicle incident on her Victorian farm. Much has already been written about her family’s loss, Lisa’s life and the impact on the community. This article is not about her; it is about how her death has been presented in the media over the last few days and the words used for the means of her death.
For many, her death was brought to our attention by a front-page article in the Herald-Sun newspaper on November 25, 2024 (image below). As an advocate for occupational health and safety (OHS) with a strong interest in farm safety, I read the whole article, and others, looking for details of the incident to contextualise it in the history of farm deaths. The only details were mentioned in the second paragraph:
“….after Ms Ronson was killed in a tragic farm accident on Saturday night, her devastated family is mourning the loss of a cherished wife and mother.”
It is reasonable to claim that the quad bike safety controversy has been resolved in Australia through the intervention of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the imposition of a national safety standard. However, the occupational health and safety (OHS) message continues to be murkier than necessary when quad bikes are advertised in some of the agricultural media without critical safety devices.
Farming is a unique industry with significant occupational health and safety (OHS) challenges; it is unique because it is a blend of rural culture, working at home often with children in the workplace, isolation from social services, self-reliance and independence. It is important for the OHS advice provided and promoted to offer the most effective health and safety advice. Many farming organisations provide this information and do it well. New Zealand’s Safer Farms appears to have good intentions but may have missed the mark with their latest video.
“Just a Farmer” is an extraordinary independent Australian film about an all too common occurrence on farms – suicide. The filmmakers have built a strong media profile over the last few months, emphasising the significance of a psychosocial work-related condition. But the film is much more than a film about mental health
Note: this article mentions suicide
There are two possible approaches to this film – a story about the realities of farm life and a depiction of mental ill-health. That both these overlapping approaches are satisfied by this film is a mark of a successful story and production.
The movie opens in over 100 Australian cinema screens on March 21, 2024.
As I write this, I am in a rooftop bar not far from the Astor Theatre, where the new Australian film ”Just a Farmer” is premiering. I am expecting a powerful story of the struggles of a farming family and community after one of their members dies by suicide. The film will likely touch on themes like the dearth of mental health support services in rural areas, the male-dominated culture of farming in Australia and the need and desire for more occupational health and safety (OHS) support services in the country. But it is the latter struggle that is most on my mind at the moment.
National organisations that support farm safety are not guaranteed the level of funding from governments they have received previously. Although the federal budget remains in surplus, it is politically expedient to keep the government purse strings tight in this time of high-interest rates and a cost-of-living crisis. This affects support services and programs for farm safety.
Last week, SafeWork New South Wales progressed the management of psychosocial hazards at work with the release of its Designing Work to Manage Psychosocial Risks guidance. This document has been a long time coming and offers significant advice on how work and people management needs to change in order to prevent psychosocial hazards. However, its implementation is likely to generate considerable opposition and confusion, or even organisational shock, if it is not able to convince employers of increased profitability and productivity from making the change.
