Considerable discussion has resulted in the quad-bike safety fraternity following the blog article about Comcare’s safety alert on 22 January 2010. Below is an official comment on the article.
“Comcare is aware that a number of organisations in the Federal jurisdiction use quad bikes and are concerned some may be using them inappropriately without necessarily understanding the risks. Continue reading “Comcare comments on quad bike advisory”
On 22 January 2010 Comcare issued a safety alert concerning the use of quad bikes (available on the Comcare website from 25 January 2010):
“Employers who own and operate quad bikes should be aware of the hazards and potential safety risks.
Following some recent accidents while operating quad bikes, a draft Code of Practice is currently being developed by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and Distributors [FCAI] relating to the ‘Use of All Terrain Vehicles in the Workplace’.
Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities (HWSA) has also formed a working party comprising of OHS Regulators and industry representatives to look at strategies to improve quad bike safety. Continue reading “Australia’s Comcare issues safety alert on quad bikes”
For those in the Northern Hemisphere at the moment, the risk of heat stress for workers is an extremely low priority but in Australia, even in the cooler parts and suburbia, the Summer temperatures are tipped to reach 38 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next few weeks. Away from the urban and coastal centres, temperatures of 45 degrees C and higher will be common.
The Queensland Government’s OHS regulator has released new guidance on heat stress. As it was only released on January 5 2010, it is the most current information. The guidance seems aimed at rural workers and particularly those industries which may have a transitory labour force from cooler climates.
The guidance is useful in that it recommends some engineering solutions instead of just PPE. For instance,
Although it would have been good to see some mention of reassessing the need to work in heat at all as discussed elsewhere in SafetyAtWorkBlog.
The Queensland guidance recommends the following heat stress control measures:
The New Zealand Department of Labour (DoL) has announced a period of public consultation on its OHS guidance on the safe use of off-road vehicles. The process will include a review of “Safe Use of ATVs on New Zealand Farms: Agricultural Guideline” publication.
Interestingly the DoL says it
“is looking to extend this publication to apply to the agricultural, forestry and adventure tourism industries.”
There is a potential for a considerable broadening of OHS issues but this may be hampered by the scheduling of the public consultation. The DoL public commentary period closes on February 13 2010. Both Australia and New Zealand are in Summer holiday mode and many companies are closed down for several weeks in January or operate on a skeleton staff. SafetyAtWorkBlog has commented on this trend for short consultative periods over the Christmas break previously. Continue reading “NZ announces inquiry into the safety of farm vehicles”
Safety in mines in Tasmania has received great attention in the aftermath of Larry Knight’s death at Beaconsfield gold mine. On 13 December 2009, the Tasmanian Workplace Relations Minister, Lisa Singh released a regulatory impact statement and information paper on proposed amendments to the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995.
This legislative package, according to the Minister’s media release:
“The proposed package considerably expands upon existing legislation, by including both general duties and hazard specific regulations for the mining industry.
“A key focus is the requirement for each mine to implement a health and safety management system, which must include risk management processes and procedures.”
Any OHS review should be welcomed but what is this trend of short periods of public comment? There were many complaints of the Federal Government for short periods of review on national model OHS laws and now the Tasmanian Government wants responses by 14 January 2010!!??
Just one month for responses and that month includes Christmas holidays and New Year. This brings the consultation period to around 19 working days.
A spokesperson for Workplace Standards Tasmania (WST) said that the various reviews and coronial reports over recent years have put pressure on the Government to improve mine safety legislation. She also said that comments on the Regulatory Impact Statement is an important and necessary step in drafting the relevant legislation.
The spokesperson said that WST is effectively closed down between Christmas and New Year but has an emergency response. Any enquiries from the public about the RIS will be handled by the WST Helpline on other working days untill relevant staff return. The Helpline is being briefed on the RIS this week.
WST emphasised that the consultation on the legislative amendments has been occurring for months. SafetyAtWorkBlog acknowledges this is the case but the Public Comment period is very tight.
The Minister, Lisa Singh, has said in her media release that
“I encourage comment from persons connected with the mining industry, including workers, mine operators and contractors.”
SafetyAtWorkBlog contacted the Minister’s Office and a spokesperson said that the timing of the Public Comment period is unfortunate but that the Government does not want to delay the process any longer than it has too. She advised that the minimum time period for comments on an RIS is three weeks and that the comment window on this particular process is four weeks.
There is no accusation of a conspiracy here but the unfortunate scheduling highlights a legitimate conflict between the aims of an effective public comment phase and legislative development that seems endemic through Australian politics.
It was good to hear the President of the Safety Institute of Australia (SIA), Barry Silburn on the radio on 7 December 2009. The SIA has traditionally been very hesitant about going public on safety issues but clearly the potential disappearance of the School of Risk & Safety Science from the University of New South Wales is important to the SIA.
The closure of this school seems absurd, particularly, when the fact of its profitability is shown.
The university’s decision appears wrong and, from the evidence of the radio interview, it seems that the decision has occurred recently. Dropping a school, regardless of the prominence claimed by the SIA, which has a problem with prominence of its own, is a harsh decision if there has not already been a consultative process or a strategic program for improvement and increased relevance.
It is not as if the school does not have access to top talent. Names familiar to Australian OHS professionals, researchers and regulators include
In the University of New South Wales’ Australian School of Business, there are several other prominent OHS academics. Most familiar to SafetyAtWorkBlog are
Barry Silburn (a video of Barry Silburn talking about the SIA is available online) accuses the University of New South Wales of sacrificing the safety profession for short-term gain:
“They’re not looking at the overall picture of OHS within Australia they’re looking at very short-term money considerations on their courses that they’re conducting within the university”.
This seems an odd accusation when compared with the fact that the school has made a profit two years running.
It seems to SafetyAtWorkBlog that the limitations of the University’s review are clear in the statement of Deputy Vice Chancellor, Richard Henry:
We had an external review of the Faculty of Science by a committee of internationally respected scientists and their recommendations to the university were that the Faculty of Science should concentrate on its strengths; areas such as maths, physics, chemistry, psychology, biology.
The university wants to focus on pure science rather than applied science after a review undertaken by “a committee of internationally respected scientists”. HMMMM?
OHS academics are often less dependent on government funding than other schools and departments because the skills and knowledge can be more readily applied in a practical way and they live closer to the economic realities of business and workplace safety.
Silburn’s accusations of greed are too narrow. The safety profession can continue without the School of Risk & Safety Science. There are many sources of OHS graduates still in Australia and, from the activity of the University of Queensland, these opportunities are increasing.
It seems that the university may have been too narrow in its selection of the review panel for the Faculty of Science. But if we take the panel’s recommendations seriously, Richard Henry does not see the School of Risk & Safety Sciences as fitting in the Faculty of Science. Surely it could fit in the university’s School of Organisation and Management. Going from this School’s profile in the website:
“The School of Organisation and Management is a multi-disciplinary unit comprising 32 full-time academics. Our mission in the School of Organisation and Management (O&M) is to conduct high quality applied research and to prepare students for employment in diverse organisational settings. Our main areas of research and teaching include: Organisational Behaviour, International Business, Human Resource Management, Industrial Relations, and social and psychological aspects of Management.”
Anne Wyatt researches the psychosocial issue of workplace bullying. Chris Winder researches occupational toxicology and his most recent academic paper is “Managing hazards in the workplace using organisational safety management systems: A safe place, safe person, safe systems approach.”
If the University of New South Wales cannot see the continuing relevance of its profitable School of Risk & Safety Science, it should perhaps get examined at its own School of Optometry and Vision Science.
Regular readers will be aware that SafetyAtWorkBlog holds the belief that OHS legislation is not the same as managing workplace safety. Safety can be managed without recourse to law (this is what many mean when they say that “safety is just common sense”) but legislation provides some parameters in which that management occurs.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions has issued a call for tougher OHS laws and used workplace fatality statistics as the basis. Tying the two issues together serves a political purpose but avoids the fact that a range of economic, political, social and even environmental issues can affect how workplaces manage safety.
The media statement issued on 11 December 2009 says:
“A sharp rise in work-related fatalities last year shows that proposed new workplace health and safety laws need to be strengthened, not watered down, say unions.
There were 177 fatal injuries in workplaces in 2008-9, according to newly released statistics from the national regulatory body, Safe Work Australia. This is an 18% increase from the previous year…. [hyperlink added]
ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence said the increase in fatalities was disturbing at a time when proposed changes to Australian workplace safety laws would result in a weakening of protections and rights.
“A double-digit increase in workplace fatalities in one year is shocking,” Mr Lawrence said. “Each of these victims is someone’s partner, parent, son, daughter or friend. The Federal, state and territory governments will make significant decisions about new national health and safety laws today. If any evidence was needed that requirements for employers to provide a safe workplace need to be toughened, this is it. We urge the federal and state governments to make workers’ safety their highest priority.”
The ACTU is doing what it should by serving the needs of its members but the push for union prosecutions of OHS breaches is only one part of its social charter. The aim of improving safety can be best achieved by motivating union members and establishing a dialogue with the general community, which includes business, small and large.
Is the day far off when we may see joint statements from unions and employer groups on the issue of workplace safety? Can politics be put aside for the benefit of improving safety? Comments welcome.