consultation – Page 67 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

This may not work for OHS but why not?

On 9 November 2009 public submissions close on Australia’s model OHS Act but the move for harmonisation and, hopefully, a simplification for business and government continues in other areas.

The Australian Transport Council (ATC) met on 6 November 2009 and agreed on many Council of Australian Governments (COAG) matters concerning unnecessary bureaucratic duplication:

“ATC agreed to recommend to COAG that South Australia would be the host jurisdiction for the national rail safety regulator.

ATC also agreed to recommend to COAG that a host jurisdiction for the national heavy vehicle regulator be agreed, noting that New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland have expressed interest.

It was agreed that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority will be the national regulator for maritime safety, responsible for regulating commercial vessels. This is a significant step towards national uniformity.”

There were several other initiatives mentioned – level crossing safety, a National Road Safety Council, minimum standard for taxi drivers.

But the recommendations above decentralise some of the bureaucracy. At the HR Leaders Awards recently, the CEO of Carnival cruise liners, Anne Cherry, said that many public servants exist in a unique policy environment of the capital city, Canberra, and the policies reflect this.

SafetyAtWorkBlog would like to suggest a change that could occur within the enforcement parameters of the OHS model law review.

Let’s consider a national mine safety regulator with offices located in each of the mineral resources regions of Australia. Could transport regulators have offices within, or just outside, major port facilities? Major hazards regulators in major hazards zones?

There is much information bandied around about flexible working arrangements and the use of new technology to unite isolated workplaces. How radical would it be to split the centralised OHS regulators’ offices into hazard-based offices in rural, regional and suburban locations? The inspectors would be adjacent to the hazard locations for enforcement and the advisers are on hand for assistance to industry. The locations could even be seasonal to deal with seasonal industries and labour forces.

OHS enforcement policies would remain the same, only the place of implementation and coordination would change.

Most OHS regulators already have a a couple of regional offices but mostly these remain in the outer suburbs of the capital cities. Some entire departments have relocated to satellite towns for cost reasons but also to provide employment opportunities outside the major population centres.

Could OHS be regulated and enforced across a country the size of Australia and through the major industrial and resource structures, without the concentrations of policy-makers and inspectors in city offices?

Kevin Jones

Australian Standards and OHS harmonisation

This morning in Melbourne, WorkSafe Victoria conducted a three-hour seminar on the harmonisation of Australia’s OHS laws. The speakers and panelists were John Merritt of WorkSafe, Tracey Browne of the Australian Industry Group and Cathy Butcher of the Victorian Trades Hall. Tripartism at its best.

The large auditorium was filled with hundreds of attendees, very few were the familiar faces of the OHS professionals who can often dominate such events.

A question was asked to the panel about the application of the Australian Standard for Plant. The question was, basically, will the Australian Standards be referred to within the upcoming OHS regulations? The panel unanimously said no.

This was the clearest indication yet that the rumour about Australian Standards not being given legislative legitimacy through legislation is correct. Tracey Browne however provided the rationale. She said

“The important thing is that as soon as we incorporate an Australian Standard in a regulation, we create a whole different legislative status of something that was never designed to be a safety regulation….

This doesn’t change the fact, though, that it is the “state of knowledge” and when you look at what you are doing in relation to what is reasonably practicable, you need to take into account all the things you know or ought to know. So if you are [for instance] bringing plant into Australia, and that is your business, then you need to know what the Australian Standards are and make sure that’s part of your consideration.”

Standards Australia is undergoing a considerable rethink due to a big loss of funds and in response to the changing regulatory structure in all sorts of industry and financial sectors. The challenge is acknowledged by the CEO of Standards Australia, John Tucker ,when he discusses a “new way of operating“.

Kevin Jones

Why have a SafetyAtWorkBlog?

Some people have mentioned to me that they find blogs a mysterious thing. It’s a media that is gaining attention from mainstream media, in fact, most mainstream media have embraced blogging to supplement the “official” media content in newspapers, journals and on television. Some blogs have become an important source of news and commentary feeding into the mainstream media.

SafetyAtWorkBlog does not provide all the safety news that is happening in Australia or elsewhere. In fact nobody is. But what we can do is select those items of news that we think have a broad appeal to safety professionals.

Also, in Australia, there are only a handful of writers and journalists who specialize in writing on OHS issues and there are many events, conferences, seminars, talks, podcasts, books and other information sources that fall under the radar of mainstream media. It is in this niche that SafetyAtWorkBlog exists.

Commentary

Blogs were original a web-based log or a web diary where people can put down their thoughts of the day. But they have become so much more and the feature that is most overlooked by readers is the capacity to comment on the articles posted to a blog.

There is some resemblance to “Letters to the Editor” in traditional media where issues can be raised but, more importantly, readers can comment on the news of the day or the thoughts of columnists, and can clarify inaccurate opinions.

The ability to respond to articles is very important to SafetyAtWorkBlog because we do not know everything about our profession. OHS is a discipline that continues to evolve just as rapidly as new hazards appear. The expert who says they know everything is a fool, the smart professional learns all the time. That is one reason why people read SafetyAtWorkBlog but the blog can be so much better when readers provide their own opinions, particularly if what is said in the blog is wrong in some way.

The best example of reader comments in this blog was the response from Peter Sandman to a piece on a book by Cass Sunstein. Sandman says

“…a few comments in the review, though flattering to me, are misleading about Sunstein.”

He goes on to list the article’s shortcomings. One comment from Sandman was then disputed by another reader, Thomas Durkin.

This dialogue showed a terrific level of opinion and provides a better understanding of Sunstein and his place in US politics and government regulation than the solitary review that generated the comments.

News

SafetyAtWorkBlog is not an OHS news service, one can get that from hundreds of news aggregators (the bane of Rupert Murdoch) on the web. SafetyAtWorkBlog provides commentary and opinion on things that are happening in the OHS world. If the opinion is wrong or the logic has severe shortcomings or the content is inaccurate, blogs provide the opportunity to correct the information or to balance the opinion.

We have ALWAYS encouraged people to comment on articles we post. If we can start a debate or help clarify an OHS concept, that’s great. But if you have something to say about what we say, email it in or post a comment. Unless it is defamatory or nasty or rude, it will be included and any points made will be genuinely considered and pondered on.

Kevin Jones

Not all employers are the same

Recently SafetyAtWorkBlog reported the umbrage that the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) felt about executive accountability, particularly in relation to OHS legislation. On 25 October 2009 the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) provided an example that should stop generalisations about employer associations , at least for a little while.

Below are extracts of the significant statements made by ACCI and attributed to its CEO, Peter Anderson:

“Safe Work Australia Week [is] an opportunity for employers and employees to step back and review their approach to ensuring safety within their workplace.

It is essential that at regular intervals time is taken to step back and take a fresh look at the bigger picture of workplace safety. Safe Work Australia Week presents an ideal opportunity to do so.

Company Boards and Senior Executive teams should regularly review their organisation’s strategy, culture, systems and commitment to workplace safety and make adjustments where needed. Safe workplaces are driven from the top.

However, managers, supervisors and all employees also need to take individual accountability for workplace safety. Workplaces with the best safety records have a culture of clear and shared accountability for safety from the first year apprentice to the Chief Executive. This is built on the empowerment and obligation of all employees to openly discuss workplace safety, report hazards and incidents, and collaboratively find the most appropriate ways of managing risks.

It is important that in the midst of the current debate about harmonised OHS legislation, the focus on day-to-day workplace safety does not slip. Legislation is not going to drive further improvements in OHS outcomes in Australia – people’s actions will. Governments and industry must look for ways to further provide small business in particular with the tools, information, advice and encouragement to effectively manage the challenges and complexities faced in ensuring workplace safety.”

The risk with any national week of special day is that the focus is on a specific moment rather than seeing the issue being raised as one that is relevant for an entire year. This is very much the problem with Safe Work Australia Week but it is not alone.

Significantly, ACCI makes a clear statement about executives being involved with the management of safety in their workplaces – the attitude and approach of “proactivity” the OHS model legislation is aiming at.

Equally significantly, ACCI discusses the individual accountability of everyone in a company for OHS. It specifies the elements in support of accountability

open discussion or (OHS regulators would say) consultation;
hazard and incident reporting; and
collaboration.

ACCI is on familiar turf when it says legislation should not be the motivation for change on OHS but employers and other commercial organisations must realise that self-regulation has never been more of an unpopular concept than in the wake of the global financial crisis. No one can trust business to do the right thing by shareholders, investors or employees. They want government to make business accountable.

The capitalist ideology says that the wealth created by business is shared with the masses through social and financial structures. ACCI is trying to rebuild the capitalist structure into a nice, friendly, warm and comforting capitalism because if it cannot, the government will impose social obligations on them. If the ACCI and other commercial bodies can do this, it will be impressive but the question can be asked why capitalism became so ruthless in the first place and did various employer associations advise companies to act cautiously and keep capitalism in line with the social obligations everyone has?

Workplace safety is an easy indication of the heartlessness of capitalists – increase profits by rushing production and encouraging shortcuts in safety; or not taking the time to train workers well enough that they can work without being harmed. But if capitalists are willing to try again and NOT follow the same pathways that have been shown to lead to economic destruction, then they should have our support.

Kevin Jones

Verify website data

At SafetyatWorkBlog the use or reuse of material is carefully considered. Some articles are not proceeded with, or media used, because of copyright, restrictions or cost. No content is used from websites without permission or without referring back to the original source and providing hyperlinks if possible. An example of how internet information can go wrong occurred earlier this month in Australia.

On 2 October 2009 the Safety Institute of Australia advised its members through its homepage that the Cancer Council, one of its strategic partners, is

“is gearing up to launch three new workplace guides as part of National Skin Cancer Week in November.”

The guides are listed on the SIA website:

Skin cancer and outdoor work: a guide for employers
Skin cancer and outdoor work: a guide for working safely in the sun brochure
SunSmart and iCourses ‘Working safely in the sun’ online training course

www-sia-org-au_news_updates_sun-protect-workplace-announce20091002-html The odd thing was that the first guide listed was published in January 2007. The second seems to be a companion leaflet for the guide for employers. They are not new and are not being launched in November 2009.

When the anomaly was brought to the attention of the Cancer Council advised SafetyAtWorkBlog that their website had not been updated for a long time and that the information was out of date. Not only should this have been obvious from the age of the publications listed but the page said the guides were to be launched on Tuesday November 20. In 2009 November 20 is a Thursday. The advice on the SIA site is based on old information.

(A slightly more recent policy statement for “sun protection in the workplace” is available elsewhere on the Cancer Council website)

It is very important, particularly in OHS where safety advice can change frequently, that any information taken from the internet is verified, especially if one is putting one’s name to it as the SIA’s CEO did in this instance.

The Sunsmart guidances produced by the Cancer Council still contain solid advice but if the risk of skin cancer or the hazard of working in direct sunlight is relevant to your worksites, make sure that the safety guidance is current and do not just rely on one information source. In this instance, see what advice the local OHS authority can provide, particular in the couple of months preceding summer.

If you run your own OHS information website or intranet, be extra careful when using other organisation’s information………..and check the dates of the information.

The bad news and the good news of New Zealand agricultural safety

On 8 October 2009, New Zealand’s Department of Labour issued a press release that stated

“New research confirms the importance of work in agriculture safety and health. The research by Otago University’s Injury Prevention Research Unit found that the rate of serious injuries and fatalities on New Zealand farms has remained high in contrast to declines in other industries over the past two decades.”

The release states that DoL continues to place a high importance on preventative action in the agriculture sector, an undeniably important economic sector for New Zealand.

However, what was most noticeable was that

“the rate of serious injuries and fatalities on New Zealand farms has remained high in contrast to declines in other industries over the past two decades.”

Surely this is not a good news story. Twenty years of preventative interventions in the agriculture sector have not been as successful as those in other industries.

SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted DoL for clarification. The commitment of DoL to the agriculture sector was re-emphasized. DoL responded very promptly to our enquiries and provided links to additional information including the original research report.

Part of the Otago University project was a literature review in the sector from 2000 to 2008. The major findings were

“The most common mechanisms for serious non-fatal injury and fatal injury include agricultural machinery (including vehicles –tractors, ATVs), livestock and falls for all age groups, in all three regions under review.

The exposures and risks of disease in the agricultural sector currently being researched and where researchers agree there is a need for further research include:

exposure to dust and organic materials and the relation to respiratory disorders;

exposure to pesticides, herbicides and insecticides and associations with various cancers including: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; prostate cancer, breast and ovarian cancer, leukaemia, multiple myeloma and brain cancers;

environmentally associated cancers (for example, skin cancer and cancer of the lip) and their association with production practice.

Occupational fatalities in agriculture remain high, despite decreases in occupational fatality rates for other industry groups, in all three regions over the last decade. The research demonstrates that there are various groups that are particularly at risk, these include:

men in all age groups;

older workers/farmers;

migrant and seasonal workers;

youths (particularly those aged between 11-15 years and male)

Children (particularly male children)

Farm-owners and managers, with respect to intentional fatal self harm injury) again predominantly men.”

Several other surveys were undertaken, one by telephone. Those results are also telling. Amongst the results was this paragraph concerning injuries:

“With respect to injury, thirteen percent (13%) of farmers from the AgriBase™ sample had had an injury, in the three months prior to interview, which had restricted their activity for a half a day or more and/or which required medical treatment from a health professional. Generally these injuries were reasonably serious and respondents reported work capacity was poor following injury. For two-thirds of those injured it was over a week before they could resume normal farming duties; yet only a third of these respondents made a claim to the Accident Compensation Corporation.”

Key findings of the report for governments include

“….there is no long term prevention strategy for injury and disease that specifically addresses the agricultural sector.”

“The dominant stereotype of the farmer as being rugged, independent and self-sufficient (and masculine) is also largely uncritically accepted by many stakeholders. These and associated stereotypes about the nature of rural life and notions of rural isolation are problematic and potentially can undermine effective health interventions in this sector.”

“…there is a tendency for initiatives to be ad-hoc and for there to be a lack of co-ordination and coherence, and in some instances, where there are some questions around the efficacy of various interventions, an unwillingness to accept that there are problems.”

There are many others that discuss a lack of resources, dubious targeting, a lack of coordination and inter-organisational politics.

For farmers and other individuals, some of the findings include:

“In connection to this evident stoicism was a vocational identification to the work they do; most could not imagine not farming, it was not just a job. The implications here are that they would often keep on working with an injury (such as a back condition), as doing the work was more important, not just economically, but also in terms of their identity, and an underlying belief that it would heal itself if they just kept on going.”

“Many said they were too tired at the end of a working day to read about injury and disease or to go onto the internet to learn about it either. When they opened the paper they wanted to know about local and international news, not health matters. This presents some real challenges for the sector in terms of disseminating information.”

The University of Otago also issued a media release on the research project. This release reflects the tone and results of the research project much more accurately.

The whole report reflects the current status of safety in the agricultural sector in New Zealand. It reports on good intentions in the wrong areas, a need to look beyond the stereotypes and the need for sustained intervention.

What seems to be needed is a creative and effective response from the Government that acknowledges that past strategies have failed, or at least that some of them have. All the existing strategies need reviewing to determine which have shown promise and could succeed if appropriate resources were allocated. Inspiration needs to be sought from within the region and from around the world. If this has already been sought and found wanting, the sad reality will be that it falls to New Zealand to make the change.

New Zealand’s DoL may already be facing this bleak reality. In their media statement, the Department’s Chief Adviser, Safety and Health, Dr Geraint Emrys said:

“The Department will use the findings of the research to inform policy decisions and to better target operational interventions to make them more effective in reducing the injury and death toll in agriculture.”

New Zealand could lead the world in this important area.

Kevin Jones

HWCA could be influential in Australia’s workers’ compensation reforms

Australia and New Zealand have a small strategic organisation called the Heads of Workers’ Compensation Authorities (HWCA, pronounced “howca” by those in the know). It is a regular meeting (some say “love-in”, others say “coven”) of the CEOs of the various workers’ compensation bodies in Australia and New Zealand. Over the next five years, as the Australian Government begins to harmonise/reform the workers’ compensation system, HWCA will be important to watch.

In early October 2009, HWCA met and endorsed a coordination strategy, that has yet to be publicly released. The main objectives of the strategy were noted in a media release (also not yet publicly available) to mark the latest meeting.

“To deliver best practice services to injured workers and employers to assist recovery: and

to build sustainable workers’ compensation schemes.”

The terminology of the first objective may provide a good indication of the type of organisation HWCA seems to be. “Best practice services”??? “Best practice” is one of the worst corporate jargons being used at the moment. This article at Wikipedia outlines the context of the phrase well.

“As the term has become more popular, some organizations have begun using the term “best practices” to refer to what are in fact merely ‘rules’….”

In other words, HWCA has a strategy to do what its member organisations should have been doing all along – enforcing the rules of good customer service and providing the best level of service to injured workers.

Perhaps it is the second strategic objective that best illustrates the aims of HWCA – to make sure that the workers’ compensation schemes do not lose money.

According to the communique that is released after every meeting (top points for open communication)

“HWCA agreed the Bio-psychosocial Rehabilitation Working Group would develop a national action plan regarding prevention of long-term disability and work loss, which will support the strategy.”

Prevention is the role of the OHS authorities in Australia and the Department of Labour in New Zealand. Clearly HWCA will be discussing these strategic aims with those in charge of preventing injuries and illnesses. But can the various WorkCovers and WorkSafes cope with biopsychosocial hazards? Surely HWCA will also be talking with all the NGOs who lobby on depression, anxiety, fatigue, stress, wellness, happiness ………….. (Get ready for even more influence for BeyondBlue)

Consultation will also be needed with the various government departments involved with health promotion, public and occupational. Not to mention the unions, employer associations and health professional bodies.

A strategy of such magnitude would require considerable resources and horse-trading through government ranks in all jurisdictions. It is hard to see this being achieved through a meeting of Chief Executive Officers, and should such a strategy be pushed through individual workers’ compensation bodies anyway?

To achieve true reform of workers’ compensation and to resist the substantial pressure that is likely to come from the Australian and international insurance companies, the Australian government is going to need considerable negotiating skills. Because of the involvement with the financially influential insurance companies, it is doubtful the intended reforms will be achieved. (HWCA already has discussions with the “Heads of Compulsory Third Party Insurers” according to the communique)

Almost as a post-script, it is noted that Greg Tweedly, CEO of WorkSafe Victoria, takes over the chairmanship of HWCA from the CEO of WorkCover NSW, Jon Blackwell. Tweedly is a very busy CEO and will become more so, if the rumour proves true that he will be joining the National Board of the Safety Institute of Australia.

As the chairmanship moves from New South Wales, so will HWCA’s administrative support. The next HWCA meeting is scheduled for 5 February 2010 and will be coordinated through the Victorian Workcover Authority or Comcare.

Kevin Jones

Category: consultation

This may not work for OHS but why not?

Like this:

Australian Standards and OHS harmonisation

Like this:

Why have a SafetyAtWorkBlog?

Commentary

News

Like this:

Not all employers are the same

Like this:

Verify website data

Like this:

The bad news and the good news of New Zealand agricultural safety

Like this:

HWCA could be influential in Australia’s workers’ compensation reforms

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Commentary

News

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: