A recent occupational health and safety (OHS) prosecution over a quad bike fatality gained some mainstream media attention, primarily due to one of the owners being an independent New South Wales politician, Helen Dalton. Strip out the political newsworthiness, and there are some serious OHS lessons for all employers to be learned from the Court judgement.
Safe Work Australia’s (SWA) latest consultation on quad bike safety is another reminder that fatalities and serious injuries continue despite years of guidance, rebates, training campaigns and polite encouragement. The evidence laid out in SWA’s consultation paper shows that harm has persisted even after “extensive education and awareness efforts”, so voluntary approaches have reached their limit. When a hazard keeps killing people in the same predictable ways, the question is no longer whether we need stronger regulation but why it has taken so long to get there. This moment demands more than another round of messaging — it demands decisions that actually change the machines people ride and the conditions they ride them in.
Below is my submission to SWA’s consultation process on improving the safety of quad bikes used in the workplace. I strongly encourage everyone to participate.
Agricultural safety has come to the fore in Australia and New Zealand over the last few weeks. Safe Work Australia (SWA) has commenced a public consultation on the safety of using a quad bike for work. It is quite revealing and limited.
Earlier this month, I was critical of occupational health and safety (OHS) and farmers and asked
“So what can WorkSafe teach them about safety that farmers don’t already know?”
The death of dairy farmer Brad Collins following an incident involving a quad bike is the type of death that could have occurred and been reported at any time over the last few decades. Surely, a change in the cultures of farming, safety, and enforcement is required? Are we at “peak safety” on the deaths of farmers from quad bikes? Can nothing more be done?
Every company seems to have a Mission Statement, a Values Statement, or something similar that all employees are expected to follow and comply with. Largely, these are aspirational statements, but they are sometimes invoked when/if an employee needs to be disciplined or dismissed. The values are often vague and lend themselves to various interpretations, even though compliance is expected and is usually part of the employment contract.
At the moment, some conservative politicians, such as Angus Taylor, are emphasising the need for citizens and immigrants to commit to and comply with “Australian values”. How he plans to enforce them is unclear, but most of his proposed values have direct impacts on how occupational health and safety (OHS) is likely to be managed.
Over the past few months, I have increasingly encountered the term “regulated industries” in the context of occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. In OHS in Australia, these industries seem predominantly to include:
I can identify no reason why farming should not also be a “regulated industry”.
Australian occupational health and safety (OHS) laws require employers to be compliant with their OHS duties, but also allow the flexibility for employers to determine their own level of compliance. This has complicated OHS because employers can never be sure that they are in compliance. Compliance and non-compliance are usually determined accurately through the courts after legal action by the OHS regulatory agency and after a workplace incident. This uncertainty is compounded for small business owners who just want to be told what to do to be compliant.
Perhaps the most challenged industry sector is farming, which cannot avoid the uncertainty that the OHS laws provide. This uncertainty is one that highly-resourced employers are proud to claim as a well-fought-for benefit, namely, flexibility, but it is more of a problem for isolated rural workplaces and small businesses.
