Category: consultation

Pro-active safety means nothing

Australia has embraced a bizarre safety concept of “pro-activity” that is confusing our understanding of intention in the next phase of OHS laws, active safety management.

It is essential to have an active safety management system, a safety management system that is not passive.  Having a positive duty for safety, as required by the upcoming new Australian OHS laws, means that companies must be active in managing safety and not sitting back, complacent in their (supposed) compliance, waiting to react to the latest hazard and implementing a new policy related to the hazard but not fixing the hazard.  It is a little like the difference between active and passive fall protection devices.  In which would you place greater trust in saving your life?

Many safety people urge others to be pro-active on safety but “pro” has many meanings.  (a brief history of the term is at wiktionary) The definition most relevant to the new terminological context is “before in time, place, order….”  It is urging businesses and professionals to anticipate the action on safety, or to bring that action forward in time.  Is it any surprise that companies look at safety professionals and wonder what they are on about?

“Pro” may also imply an increased level of support for safety, as in a “pro and con”.  It is doubtful that the definition of ‘pro” as being shortened from “prostitute” is relevant in the OHS context but it would only take a prostitution support group to start advocating a “pro-active safety management system” for the sex industry for “pro-active” to die the death it deserves.

Every industry and profession has jargon but every industry and profession must also communicate with society in Plain English.  Jargon has no place in broad communication and workplace safety, to succeed and improve, must communicate broadly.

Let’s put “pro-active” with other unhelpful safety terms such as “best practice” and “zero harm”.

Kevin Jones

Examining core values may benefit safety

Contemporary safety training is increasing discussing the core values of employees and managers.  This focus can be very confronting for many people as core values are rarely discussed or even acknowledged, yet they could be central to the modern approach to safety management and safety compliance.

New safety legislation in Australia applies a common obligation across jurisdictions and industries to consult about health and safety, to communicate, to listen.  But personal and corporate OHS obligations are well established so will the reiteration of these obligations in the consultative process have the impact expected?  Does this conversation make safety more important, more “front of mind?

A better result may come from discussing core values in the workplace safety and health context.  Some may look for these core values to be exposed via expensive training courses and awareness gurus but the first step could be to simply ask one’s self, or discuss with one’s partner, the question “what are my core values?” or “what do I believe?” or “what is most important to me?” Continue reading “Examining core values may benefit safety”

Bullying Code of Practice illustrates the huge challenges of OHS in Australia

Australia has released a draft Code of Practice on “preventing and responding to workplace bullying“.  As it is the latest publication on this issue by an OHS authority, it deserves some analysis.

The draft code has applied the established definition of workplace bullying as:

“repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or a group of workers, that creates a risk to health and safety.”

It covers direct and indirect bullying and includes the new communications technologies through which stalking and cyberbullying can occur.

Unintentional bullying

Curiously the draft Code also includes “unintentional bullying”:

“Bullying can also be unintentional, where actions which, although not intended to humiliate, offend, intimidate or distress, cause and should reasonably have been expected to cause that effect.  Sometimes people do not realise that their behaviour can be harmful to others.  In some situations, behaviours may unintentionally cause distress and be perceived as bullying.”

This section has generated some discussion already.  Professional colleagues today explained to me how inappropriate acts may be construed by the recipient as bullying even through the proponent does not see the actions as such.  The quote above importantly emphasises the role of perception, a concept that is not traditionally associated with OHS, where facts, figures and engineering solutions are more comfortable.  Perceived bullying, injustices and abuse have been more often dealt with through human resources networks.  It is difficult to see any way of investigating workplace bullying without substantial support from an HR professional.  It is similarly difficult to see any way of preventing bullying without access to this resource. Continue reading “Bullying Code of Practice illustrates the huge challenges of OHS in Australia”

Regulatory Impact Statement to be released on 14 September 2011

According to a media release from Senator Chris Evans, the Australian Minister for Workplace Relations,  the Regulatory Impact Statement for the new OHS regulations will be released today, 14 September 2011.  The release is not yet publicly available on-line so the full text is included below:

New health and safety regulations to boost national productivity

“Historic health and safety reforms will deliver up to $2 billion a year in productivity gains Minister for Workplace Relations, Senator Chris Evans said today.

The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the harmonisation of health and safety regulations released today confirms the economic benefit of a national OHS system and demonstrates that the reforms are on track to be implemented by 1 January 2012.

“The Statement vindicates COAG’s decision in 2008, and the Gillard Government’s determination to pursue OHS harmonisation as a key economic reform,” Senator Evans said. Continue reading “Regulatory Impact Statement to be released on 14 September 2011”

Alarmism and confusion over Australia’s OHS harmonisation process

The Australian Financial Review (AFR) on 13 September 2011 is muddying the waters on objections to Australian harmonised OHS laws.  The Victorian Government would support a delay to the introduction of the laws until, according to previous media reports, the release of the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) on the new laws.  The AFR is reporting (not available online without a subscription) that the government

“…will not endorse the regulations until the federal government releases a cost-benefit analysis.”

It is understood that an RIS is not the same as a cost-benefit analysis even though costs and benefits are part of an RIS.

Australia’s Office of Best Practice Regulation (OPBR) states that an RIS has seven (7) key elements:

Victorian Government may be a hurdle in OHS harmonisation

SafetyAtWorkBlog has been receiving several requests for information about the introduction of the model Work Health and Safety Bill into the Victorian Parliament.  As the new laws have been “modelled” on the recent Victorian Act, some thought the introduction of the Bill could be undertaken early.  Others, for the same “modelling” reason, argued for delay.  On 12 September 2011, Victoria’s Assistant Treasurer, Gordon Rich-Phillips, has spoken in favour of delaying the date for enacting the laws past 1 January 2012.

Rich-Phillips is basing his position of the continuing lack of a regulatory impact statement (RIS) for the laws, a delay that has also caused concerns on various OHS discussion forums over recent months.  His demand to know the “costs and benefits” of the laws is not unreasonable however the RIS is only about the impact of the regulations and not the harmonisation process as a whole. Continue reading “Victorian Government may be a hurdle in OHS harmonisation”

Free October 2001 safetyATWORK magazine

SafetyAtWorkBlog evolved out of an online publication, safetyATWORK.  In 2001, safetyATWORK published a special edition of the magazine focussing on the OHS issues related to the collapse of the World Trade Centre (WTC) in September 2011.  That special edition is now available as a free download through the cover image on the right.

The magazine contains:

  • an article by Lee Clarke on planning for the worst-case scenarios;
  • an interview with Peter Sandman,
  • an article by me, Kevin Jones,

and other articles concerning

© Workplace Safety Services P/L (ABN: 68091088621) and SafetyAtWorkBlog, 2008-2025. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Jones and SafetyAtWorkBlog with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Concatenate Web Development
© Designed and developed by Concatenate Aust Pty Ltd