consultation – Page 53 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Managers being closer

The following are some of the processes supposedly used in workplaces to control/eliminate hazards: hazard identification, risk assessment and risk management. These should address the implicit questions of: ‘What?’, ‘How bad?’ and ‘What to do?’

The language then turns to words and concepts like ‘OHS culture’, ‘behaviour-based safety’… and all within some over-arching package referred to as an ‘OHS management system’. These are shown in the diagram below.

But that’s one representation, there are many others. Now ask some simple questions: Given that some 80% of workers work in small to medium workplaces, just how much interest will there be from managers in these approaches?

The single most obvious change I’ve seen in OHS in the last 20 years has been the dramatic increase in the amount and volume of talking about it. It’s clearly not the only change, but the most wide-spread and obvious one. Continue reading “Managers being closer”

Quad bike manufacturers resist the inevitable

Pressure is increasing on the manufacturers of quad bikes in Australia and from a variety of sources.

The Weekly Times newspaper continues, almost fortnightly, to report on the safety debate about the use and design of quad bikes. The 9 June edition has a double-page spread on the issue with many direct quotes from “players” in the debate. The fact that a national rural newspaper has devoted this level of column inches is indicative of the controversy. The Australian metropolitan dailies have not followed this lead but, as we have seen in previous blog posts, major New Zealand papers have covered the issues.

Some Australian government departments are applying the cautionary principle under legislative occupational health and safety (OHS) obligation and have restricted the use of quad bikes pending risk assessments. SafetyAtWorkBlog has heard that one department, New South Wales’ National Parks & Wildlife Service, has passed through the assessment phase and will be fitting Crush Protection Devices (CPDs) to their quad bikes by the end of August 2011.

A source close to the debate has told SafetyAtWorkBlog that

There is an increased likelihood for coroners’ inquests in a number of states;
The quad bike industry has begun formally misrepresenting the value of CPDs in posters, of which several have been provided to quad bike distributors; and
The industry continue to assert that research shows CPDs cause more harm than good but provide no evidence of this. Continue reading “Quad bike manufacturers resist the inevitable”

Reasonably Practicable is more a hindrance than a help

Possible future OHS conversation between Person Conducting Business or Undertaking (PCBU) and an OHS Inspector or OHS professional looking at a piece of plant:

PCBU: “Look at this machine, it now complies with the work health and safety laws, as far as is reasonably practicable.”
OHS: “Terrific. How did you work out that the plant complies?”
PCBU: “Well we asked around and we reckon this is the best solution.”
OHS: “So did you assess whether anyone could get harmed using this machine?”
PCBU: “Yep”
OHS: “What sort of injury do you think could result from operating this plant?”
PCBU: “Not much”
OHS: “Who told you that the plant now meets all the requirements of the OHS legislation?”
PCBU: “Our workshop manager/neighbour/consultant….”
OHS: “Did they suggest ways for making the plant safe?”
PCBU: “Yep”
OHS: “So why isn’t there a guard around that pinch point?”
PCBU: “Ummmmm, I can’t afford the guard this month but the manager/neighbour/consultant said it’d be alright as long as we put this warning sign up in the meantime. But it’s reasonably practicable, I reckon.”

As the new Work Health and Safety laws become a reality in Australia from January 2012, the line of compliance will expand to create a grey band within which compliance is likely only to be determined by lawyers after an injury has occurred. Continue reading “Reasonably Practicable is more a hindrance than a help”

Australia’s Safety Institute bemoans the politicisation of OHS

The Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) is a very quiet organisation for one that claims to be “Australia’s professional body for health & safety professionals”, particularly considering Australia is undergoing a gentle revolution of its workplace safety laws. But SIA’s recently appointed national secretary, Stephen Thomas, has spoken out, reportedly as an SIA spokesperson, about the lack of prominence of OHS professionals on the boards of OHS and workers compensation regulators.

The lead story of online newspaper inDaily for 30 May 2011 has Thomas discussing the politicisation of occupational health and safety:

“In my view, the tri-partite structure has actually politicised OHS here in South Australia, as well as in other states,” he told Indaily. “You have these groups representing employer interest, employee interest and government interest, but there’s nobody from the OHS profession that sits at these board tables where important strategic decisions are made.

“It’s really only the independent views of professional OHS practitioners that can really provide objective advice and objective opinions without getting embroiled in the political process.

“I believe the politicisation of OHS has been to its detriment, both across the country [nationally through Safe Work Australia] and here in this state.”

Complaining about the politicisation of any element of society seems impractical as politics is integral to the decision making of public policy. It is surprising that such a position is still held, particularly by an executive of a national professional association, as there are countless examples of how political decisions have affected OHS laws and safety policies negatively and positively. Continue reading “Australia’s Safety Institute bemoans the politicisation of OHS”

Quad bike manufacturers walk out of safety working group

In early 2010, Australia’s Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities (HWSA) established a trans-Tasman working party to look at the safety issues of quad bikes, often called all-terrain vehicles. The working group is in the final stages of its report and a major motorcycle industry representative has not liked the findings and has apparently withdrawn from the working group. A report on the increasing tensions was published in this week’s The Weekly Times. SafetyAtWorkBlog has been told that the quad bike industry representative has walked out in protest.

Let’s look at what HWSA said about the working group in May 2010:

“HWSA Chair, John Watson, said every farming fatality leads to immeasurable suffering in close-knit rural communities and these figures are not acceptable.

“The working group is expected to deliver solutions to safety problems associated with use of quad bikes on farm properties and raise awareness of practical risk controls,…

“The group will look at issues that include design, safety equipment, training and instruction, aftermarket accessories, safe use and point of sale,….

“The joint program of work will be delivered through an Industry Solutions Program where industry and regulators work together to address high risk safety issues – an initiative that has successfully provided practical solutions to a number of issues across many industries.

“The working group is focused on producing tangible and sustainable safety outcomes across the farming and agricultural industry where quad bikes are commonly used….”

Of significance in that media release is that Chief Executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) Andrew McKellar said

“It is our objective that all quad bike users are well informed of the manufacturer’s recommendations in relation to the safe use of these vehicles…”

The sticking point in the working group was, according to The Weekly Times, that

“”…the committee was expected to back the recommendation to “consider fitting an anti-crush device”, the strongest position yet for roll-over protection.”

The committee did recommend this and apparently the FCAI walked. Attempts have been made to contact the FCAI to confirm their action and their objections. Continue reading

Compliance or Confidence?

A reader has been inspired by recent articles discussing OHS compliance to contribute their own article on some of the issues raised:

“Compliance”, while being a way forward in OHS, misses the mark. We should ask the question: Why do regulators want compliance anyway?

Compliance, or conformance as is alternatively used, is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. In haste to improve the world via compliance we sometimes forget that.

Compliance presumes that rules laid down by regulators are a “good enough” way to achieve safety. Compliance’s foundation is the minimum-standard. Foundations cannot be anything like the maximum-standard because best practice regulation knowledge backs up our common sense that maximum standards would be bad and expensive. But wouldn’t it be comforting to be able to encourage and get more than just the minimum?

Some who have felt the stick end of compliance might think some regulators believe their rules and guides are the only path to safety. But the fact is that even the best codes & regulations have flaws; they do change. Furthermore, exemptions get provided, position papers and codes of practice get written to fill the gaps. And they get re-written. Sometimes the reasons for a rule are lost in time. Shamefully, sometimes valid reasons never existed. Sometimes rules are written to serve the purposes of some over others or to empower authority. We can know this because COAG and the OBPR have to warn against it. Continue reading “Compliance or Confidence?”

South Australia drops new OHS Bill less than one month after introduction

The South Australian Government has confirmed to SafetyAtWorkBlog that the Work Health and Safety Bill introduced into Parliament on 7 April 2011 has been withdrawn less than one month later.

South Australian politics has been in turmoil since the resignation of the Industrial Relations Minister, Bernie Finnigan, on 22 April 2011. Finnigan presented the WHS Bill to Parliament and had the running of the Bill. The IR portfolio, including this Bill, was given to Patrick Conlon and Conlon decided to withdraw the legislation.

A spokesperson for Minister Conlon has advised SafetyAtWorkBlog the Bill was withdrawn for procedural reasons. Finnigan was in the Upper House and Conlon is in the lower. For Conlon to take carriage of the Bill, it needs to be introduced into the Lower House and that is likely to be within weeks.

Conlon has also decided to take advantage of the situation by allowing South Australians to make representations on any concerns they may have with the legislation.

This delay makes it more difficult for South Australia to meet the deadline for the legislation at the end of 2011 but it also takes a little of the gloss from being the first State to support the national OHS harmonisation process by introducing its own legislation. Continue reading “South Australia drops new OHS Bill less than one month after introduction”

Category: consultation

Managers being closer

Like this:

Quad bike manufacturers resist the inevitable

Like this:

Reasonably Practicable is more a hindrance than a help

Like this:

Australia’s Safety Institute bemoans the politicisation of OHS

Like this:

Quad bike manufacturers walk out of safety working group

Like this:

Compliance or Confidence?

Like this:

South Australia drops new OHS Bill less than one month after introduction

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: