The July 2004 edition of SafetyATWORK magazine contained an interview with Sam Holt the CEO of Australian company Skin Patrol. The fascinating service of Skin Patrol was that they travelled the outback of Australia with a mobile skin cancer testing unit. That is a big area to cover but with the increasing incidence of skin cancer and the acceptance of ultraviolet exposure as an OHS problem, the service seemed timely.
SafetyAtWorkBlog was contacted by Skin Patrol in early December 2009 as it was releasing the findings of a survey of 1,000 outdoor workers. Its survey has these key findings:
2.5 times the national reported incidence of malignant melanoma
One in 10 patients had a lesion highly suspicious of skin cancer
26% of patients were diagnosed with moderate to severe sun damage
70% of patients diagnosed with a lesion suspicious of skin cancer were aged 40 years or greater
Over 90% of workers who attended the Skin Patrol clinic because they were worried about a particular spot or the condition of their skin had not had their skin checked in the past 12 months prior to the onsite clinic.
The company’s media release also states:
“The incidence of melanoma for all Australians currently sits at 46 in 100,000, however for those that work outdoors that figure jumps to 100 in 100,000.”
The risks from exposure to ultraviolet are well established and our understanding of the risks have changed considerably within one generation. The Australian culture has changed to one of sun-worshipping to one where the wearing of hats is enforced at school, hard hats have wide brim attachments, and outdoor work is undertaken in long pants and long-sleeved shirts. Occupational control measures have been introduced.
Of course, particularly in the construction industry, principle contractors still struggle in a getting compliance with the UV-protection policies but that’s the case for many OHS policies.
Skin cancer risks through high UV exposure are well-established OHS Issues but the reality still does not mean that controlling the hazard is easy to manage. Culturally we still want to have a tanned complexion even if it is sprayed on. Tanned skin is still synonymous with good health even though the medical evidence differs.
Skin cancer risks in the workplace are simply another of those workplace hazards that are ahead of the non-workplace culture and that safety professionals need to manage. The attraction with this hazard is that there is no disputing the evidence.
David Cameron, the leader of England’s Conservative Party, has spoken about the health and safety culture that he says is restricting personal and business options in England.
In the full speech, Cameron clearly outlines an ideological agenda but it is a mistake to see this as an attack on the OHS regulator. Below is an edited summary of the most relevant bits of his speech:
“In almost every area, the Conservative Party aims to remove the obstacles that prevent people from making their own decisions.
That’s why we plan a radical redistribution of power, giving control over education, housing and policing to local people.
…there is a growing sense that too many areas of our life are governed by petty rules, regulations and tick box bureaucracy that flies in the face of common sense, undermines discretion and prevents us from getting on with our lives.
We see it in our police force,… our prisons, …our schools, [and] our hospitals
[the the over-the-top health and safety culture] is… infuriating. It … stifles judgement and discretion……is a straitjacket on personal initiative and responsibility……and is a big barrier to the creation of the big society.
…something has gone seriously wrong with the spirit of health and safety in the past decade.
…it is clear that what began as a noble intention to protect people from harm has mutated into a stultifying blanket of bureaucracy, suspicion and fear that has saturated our country…
How has this over-the-top health and safety culture become embedded in our national way of life? [emphasis added]
[European] bureaucratic rules
The Labour Government
But the biggest cause of this excessive health and safety culture is the way these rules have been interpreted and used.
What is more the problem is the perception we have allowed to develop that in Britain today, behind every accident there is someone who is personally culpable……someone who must pay.
[It is encouraged by]
adverts on television
the commercialising of lawyers’ incentives to generate litigation
the rising premiums and concerns of the insurance industry.
high-profile claims and pay-outs.
This has all helped to create a legal hypersensitivity to risk, accident and injury. And this has had a direct knock-on effect on the health and safety culture.
So it is not just the regulations from Brussels, or even the distrustful, interfering government that has created this culture, or the insurance industry, ……it is that everyone’s so worried about being sued that they invent lots of their own rules on top of the regulations that already exist.
… perhaps the most damaging consequences of this excessive health and safety culture have occurred in our society.
… the health and safety culture actively undermines responsibility.
CONSERVATIVE APPROACH
First, establish clear and specific principles about when health and safety legislation is appropriate, and when it is not, so we can evaluate whether existing or future legislation is necessary.
Second, we will propose practical changes in the law to both help bring an end to the culture of excessive litigation while at the same time giving legal safeguards to those who need them most.
HEALTH AND SAFETY CHANGES
there are three particular scenarios where this is the case.
The first is when consumers have a lack of information, or are unable to understand technical information, about a product or a service they are purchasing.
The second situation in which official action on health and safety is appropriate is where there is an imbalance of power.
The third situation in which there is a case for health and safety oversight is when someone might have a clear motive – normally profit – to put someone else in danger.
That’s because keeping people safe is often more expensive than exposing them to risk.
[REVIEW]
I have asked Lord Young to lead an extensive review on this subject for the Conservative Party. He has a track record of deregulation and cutting bureaucracy. He also has experience in the legal profession and will judge these issues with the care and attention they deserve. And he will look at everything from the working of the Health and Safety Executive, to the nature of our health and safety laws, litigation and the insurance industry.
There are some specific questions I have asked David Young to investigate urgently.
The first question is: how can we best protect what are effectively ‘Good Samaritans’?
In Australia, concern about the effect of increasing payouts for medical negligence led to a full review of civil liability. Its final report concluded that when an individual is acting in good faith – as a Good Samaritan – and takes reasonable actions to help someone, then they should not be found negligent.
Second, can we help alleviate some of health and safety oversight that currently burdens small, local and voluntary organisations?
Third, do we need a Civil Liability Act?
I know the over-the-top health and safety culture that has grown in our country in recent years provokes a lot of understandable anger. But anger itself is not solution. Instead we need a forensic examination of what has gone wrong and the steps we need to take to put it right.”
Cameron’s speech has some valid points even if the ideological path that he has followed to get here may be unpalatable.
What separates this from a Jeremy Clarkson rant is that he is not targeting any one particular bureaucracy or social group. He acknowledges that there are a range of social factors that have, over time, created what he believes is an “over-the-top health and safety culture”. Cameron may have chosen extremes to illustrate his points but most OHS professionals would not be averse to a review of OHS laws particularly if such a review included other social structures that make their lives difficult but over which they have no influence.
Along the way, the chance for the political boot up the jaxy of the regulators and the unions, and those dreadful Europeans, will be irresistable for the Conservatives, but if planned for occupational health and safety may salvage some useful tools.
It must be remembered that the Conservatives are not in power in England but even from here in Australia, the Prime Minister Gordon Brown looks like a dead man walking.
Some commentators have already responded to the “outrageous” suggestions in Cameron’s speech. More union response similar to this from Grahame Smith, General Secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, can be expected.
“The families of the tens of thousands of workers who have been killed and maimed at work will find these comments deeply offensive. David Cameron has sent a chilling message to the working people in the UK that any future Conservative Government will attack the health and safety laws that trade unions have spent decades fighting for.
“This is not about draconian legislation. This is about the failure, or unwillingness, of employers, community groups and others to grasp the very basics of our health and safety system.
“We have witnessed what poor regulation has done for our finance sector and the economy. We do not want to see this attack on health and safety legislation having a similar catastrophic effect on human lives. Our economy will recover. Individuals killed at work and their families never recover from the consequence of poor health and safety regulation.
“We would say to David Cameron if you want to learn about the true consequences of health and safety failures read Hazards Magazine and come to Scotland and meet families who have lost loved ones due to health and safety failures by employers. Don’t subscribe to the trivial nonsense which is churned out by sections of the media.”
Smith is correct to remind Cameron to not rely on the media from which to develop policies, particularly the English print media. Smith comparison of OHS legislation to financial market regulation is also valid. Legislation should never be used as a blanket control mechanism but requires targeting.
On behalf of 1,650 HSE inspectors, scientists and other specialists, Prospect negotiator Mike Macdonald said: “There is a world of difference between petty bureaucracy enacted under the label of health and safety and HSE regulation designed to prevent deaths in the workplace.
“Measures aimed at preventing death and injury at work run the risk of being overshadowed by inappropriate obsessions by local authorities with minor issues that are often an excuse for withdrawing services on the grounds of cost. Given the importance of health and safety to the British economy and UK businesses we would welcome any changes that boost workers’ safety as well as business competitiveness.
“But confusing the two continues to perpetuate a negative image of health and safety regulation and masks the bigger picture: as the figures for 2007/08 show 32,810 employees were exposed to fatal and major injuries at work.”
If (when) the Conservatives come to power in England, Cameron and Lord Young will need to structure an inquiry that is inclusive and designed to be constructive. Many people will approach such an inquiry with decades of suspicion and many memories of despair and disappointment. In many ways the laws require a rationalisation, not a revolution and this is what Cameron needs to “sell” as he gets ready for the next election, due in the first half of 2010.
Some of the best OHS writing comes from the personal. In a couple of days time a new book will go on sale that illustrates big issues from a niche context and brings to the research a degree of truth from the personal experiences of the author.
“Pia Markkanen’s extraordinary first hand investigation of the dangers of home work in the shoe industry in the Philippines and Indonesia is an important contribution to our understanding of work, health and the global economy. She also carefully documents the intersection of gender relations and hierarchy with the social relations of “globalised” economic development and reveal as the important implications for the health of women, men and children as toxic work enters the home.”
As one reads this book, local equivalents keep popping into the reader’s head. For instance, Markkanen’s discussion of the home as workplace raises the definition of a “workplace” that is currently being worked through in Australia. She briefly discusses the definition in her chapter “Informal Sector, Informal Economy” where she refers to an ILO Home Work Convention, and usefully distinguishes between the homeworker and the self-employed, a distinction that Australian OHS professionals and regulators should note.
Markkanen does not impose a Western perspective on her observations and acknowledges that regardless of the global economic issues and social paradigms, “shoemakers felt pride for their work”. This pride goes some way to explaining why workers will tolerate hazards that others in other countries would not. In many OHS books this element is often overlooked by OHS professionals and writers who are puzzled about workers tolerating exposure and who look to economic reasons predominantly.
In South East Asia, limited knowledge can be gleaned from literature reviews as the research data is sparse. Markkanen interviewed participants first hand and, as mentioned earlier, this provides truth and reality. She describes the shoe makers’ workshops in Indonesia:
“Shoe workshops are filled with hazardous exposures to glues, primers, and cleaning agents, unguarded tools, and dust. Work positions are often awkward, cuts and burns are common, as are respiratory disorders. Asthma and breathing difficulties are widespread when primers were in use. Workers were reluctant to visit doctors because of the expense.”
She then reports on the interviews with Mr. Salet, a shoe manufacturer, Ms. Dessy, the business manager, Mr Iman, the business owner, Mr Ari, a skilled shoemaker, and many others.
Markkanen also illustrates the shame that the minority world and chemical manufacturers should feel about the outsourcing of lethal hazards to our fellows. In the chapter, “Shoemaking and its hazards”, she writes:
“Shoe manufacturing will remain a hazardous occupation as long as organic solvents are applied in the production. It is notable that in 1912, the Massachusetts Health Inspection report declared that naphtha cement, then in use for footwear manufacturing, was considered hazardous work. The 1912 report also referred to a law which required the exclusion of minors from occupations hazardous to health – the naphtha cement use was considered such hazardous work unless a mechanical means of ventilation was provided and the cement containers were covered…. minors were prohibited from using the cement. Almost a century later, hazardous footwear chemicals are still applied – even by children – in the global footwear industry.”
There is little attention given to the OHS requirements of majority world governments by OHS professionals in the West, partly because the outsourcing of manufacturing to those regions has led to the reporting of OHS infringements and human rights issues more than information about the legislative structures.
Markkanen provides a great section where she describes the OHS inspectorate resources of the Indonesian Government and the fact that Indonesian OHS law requires an occupational safety and health management system. Granted this requirement is only for high-risk industries or business with more than 100 employees but there are many other countries that have nothing like this. Markkanen quotes Article 87 of the Manpower Act 2003:
“Every enterprise is under an obligation to apply an occupational safety and health management system that shall be integrated into the enterprise’s management system.”
It is acknowledged that this section of legislation is hardly followed by business due to attitude and the lack of enforcement resources but we should note that safety management is not ignored by majority world governments.
Lastly, Markkanen provides a chapter on the gender issues associated with the shoemaking industry. She makes a strong case for the further research into the area but it is a shame that to achieve improvements in women’s health the reality is that
“women’s health needs female organizers and female women trade union leaders who understand women’s concerns”.
Some male OHS professionals may be trying to be “enlightened” but this seems to not be enough to work successfully in some Asian cultures.
Overall this book provides insight by looking at a small business activity that illustrates big issues. The book is a slim volume of around 100 pages and it never becomes a difficult read because it is concise and has a personal presence that other “academic” books eschew. As with many Baywood Books, the bibliographies are important sources of further reading.
At times it was necessary to put the book aside to digest the significance of some of the information. Occasionally the reality depicted was confronting. Baywood Books could do well by encouraging more writers to contribute to it Work, Health & Environment Series.
[SafetyAtWorkBlog received a review copy of this book at no charge. We also noted that, according to the Baywood Books website, the book is available for another couple of weeks at a reduced price.]
OHS professionals are very keen on advocating a change in workplace culture as a base requirement for safety improvements. They also regularly quote the need for “top-down” leadership (however that is defined) to generate the cultural change.
SafetyAtWorkBlog has already may some comments about leadership today but an interesting article has been brought to our attention that, although it doesn’t discuss safety, talks about how the role of chief executive officers over the last decade and some of the agents of change.
The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology released an article on 23 November 2009 concerning the selection of CEOs and succession planning. The article says that the days of the “imperial CEO” has gone as (US) legislation has required a the process of complaisance to be shared. Perhaps there really is “no I in TEAM”.
Randall Cheloha summarises the variety of forces and obligations that now must be considered when running a corporation. Occupational Safety is not included but could have been.
“There are more constituencies to satisfy. In addition to major shareholders, financial analysts, employees and former executives, some companies, particularly those that received large government bailouts, have directly or indirectly been asked to change directors and add new players to their boards to represent the new constituencies, including the federal government and unions.”
Not only have the constituencies multiplied but the demands have changed as well. Many of the groups suddenly have the ear of the executives and realize from past experience that the window of opportunity may not last. The risk is that they go in too hard and too fast and create their own resistance.
Australian corporations had a habit of always looking overseas for CEOs, implying that the local executive pool was deficient. That has changed recently where well-qualified local candidates are getting serious consideration and, some, appointments. The SIOP article refers to the weakening of corporate culture by feeling the need to look outside for candidates. Cultural continuity is equally valid and safety is part of that.
Hopefully the days of CEOs taking pride in nicknames such as “toecutter” or “the axe” have gone the way of “razor gangs”.
There is the risk of “cronyism” with internal CEO appointments but that risk is minimised if the cultural work on the company has already been undertaken.
Australian conferences have recently been pushing for “CEO days” where CEOs talk about the importance of safety and culture in their organisations. To some extent, the safety professionals in the audience are the wrong audience. Perhaps it is the CEO conferences that need to hear from a safety spokesperson who can use bad OHS management as a case study of how executive decisions created a toxic culture that led to injury and death. Sadly, such case studies are not hard to find.
In Australia there is increasing pressure to work more hours than what one is paid for. Many different organisations use this fact to push for various improved benefits, in many circumstances the statistics are used in support of wage improvements.
But working beyond contracted hours will certainly affect one’s work/life balance as there are only so many hours in the day and if work dominates one’s life, family time or rest will be sacrificed. The imbalance leads to a range of negative psychological and social actions. An article in Wikipedia on working time summarises this.
“In contrast, a work week that is too long will result in more material goods at the cost of stress-related health problems as well as a “drought of leisure.” Furthermore, children are likely to receive less attention from busy parents, and childrearing is likely to be subjectively worse. The exact ways in which long work weeks affect culture, public health, and education are debated.”
Australia has yet to have the debate on the matter of working hours that has been seen in Europe and England but the issue exists very much in Australia, although it has yet to gain any traction.
“… found that each year, the average full-time Australian worker does 266.6 hours of unpaid overtime, or an extra six-and-a-half working weeks…. The think tank estimates that through unpaid overtime, workers are forgoing a total of $72.2 billion in wages or 6% of GDP.”
The Australian Institute report found the following
Forty-five per cent of all Australian workers, and more than half of all full-time employees, work more hours than they are paid for during a typical workday.
Unpaid overtime is more common among people who work a ‘standard’ business workday (that is, not shift work) and among white-collar workers.
Workplace culture is a dominant contributing factor, with 44 per cent of people who work unpaid overtime saying that it is ‘compulsory’ or ‘expected’ and another 43 per cent saying that it is ‘not expected, but also not discouraged’.
Across the workforce, the average employee works 49 minutes unpaid during a typical workday.
Full-time employees work 70 minutes of unpaid overtime on average, while parttime employees work 23 minutes.
Men work more unpaid overtime than women (63 minutes versus 36 minutes a day). Men with young children work a great deal more than women with young children (71 minutes compared with 30 minutes).
Unpaid overtime increases with income: people in low-income households work an average of 28 minutes of unpaid overtime a day compared with 61 minutes for people in high-income households.
When asked what would happen if they didn’t work unpaid overtime, most say that ‘the work wouldn’t get done’, suggesting that the demands placed on employees are too much for many people.
A majority of survey respondents who work additional hours said that if they didn’t work overtime they would spend more time with family, and many said that they would do more exercise.
The report clearly states that allowing “unpaid overtime” has a strong cost in social and individual health but there is an OHS perspective that over gets overlooked due to public health and industrial relations dominating the issue.
In a media statement from October 2009, as an example, Deloittes quoted some scientists, in support of a anti-sleep device, on statistics that have been bandied around for some time:
“…scientists equate fatigue to blood-alcohol levels: if a person has been awake for 18 hours, it’s the equivalent of having a .05 level of alcohol in their body; if they have been awake for 21 hours, it’s equivalent to a.08 level.”
There are several further examples on negative health impacts in the Australia Institute report.
It can be strongly argued that by allowing, or expecting, “unpaid overtime”, employers may be encouraging workers to travel home while impaired and that employers are creating a work/life imbalance by requiring “unpaid overtime”. Certainly it could be argued that even during unpaid overtime, the cognitive function of the employee is less than expected, or even have the worker unfit for work.
Arguing about unpaid overtime clearly makes the debate one of money not safety or wellness or the social contract, and this is the argument’s inherent weakness.
Arguing for compensation for “unpaid overtime” is arguing for “danger money” – how much money will a worker accept in order to keep working into the unhealthy and dangerous hours beyond their regular contracted hours? This type of argument disappeared almost twenty years ago in Australia when the Australian awards system was reformed to remove allowances in relation to working at heights, picking up roadkill, or working in excessive heat. It was agreed that “danger money” was inappropriate and that OHS principles demanded the risks involved with these tasks be reduced rather than “paying workers” to place themselves at risk.
ACTU Secretary Jeff Lawrence, in his media statement in support of Go Home on Time Day, and The Australia Institute in its media statement on its report both underplay a major point in the debate on working hours when they argue in economic terms. Lawrence says
“If the work demands are too much to complete in a normal working day, then employees should be paid for their extra hours, or their employer must hire more staff.”
The institute mentions wellness in passing but emphasises in its media release
“..the 2.14 billion hours of unpaid overtime worked per year is a $72 billion gift to employers and means that 6% of our economy depends on free labour.”
Employing more staff is preferable but removing the culture of unpaid overtime is far more important. Arguing on the basis of economics, ie “being paid for their extra hours”, may expose the worker to greater risk of injury or illness at the workplace or on the way home. Quality of life, work/life balance and personal health and safety are stronger arguments for “going home on time”, arguments supported by The Australia Institute and the Australian Greens.
Recent a colleague was explaining to me how the cost of a project is ballooning and the project is generating a toxic workplaces by some managers not talking to other managers. The disharmony is doing nothing to control the costs and the juvenile conduct of the managers is spreading the damage throughout the organisation.
My colleague told me that if only the existing, long-standing purchasing and project policies had been followed this situation would not have occurred. One person did not do their job properly and made a decision that was not substantiated by the policy. The decision was not checked, for whatever reason, and the project is in serious jeopardy.
Many readers may recognise a similar scenario but often these become very muddy due to office politics, office allegiances etc. But it is often easier to understand big issues by looking at small cases. Douglas Law firm posts small court decision reports every so often that summarise OHS matters well. One of the latest concerns
There was a documented safety system where before performing excavation work, a number was to be called which provided information on underground pipes and cabling. On the day in question the number was not called and the supervisor merely visually inspected the area. The risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable as electric cables were usually found in orange conduit pipes. The contractor was left unsupervised to cut the pipes, and had no experience in the area.”
This case is a useful thumbnail that illustrates the consequence of small decisions.
Perhaps, OHS professionals should look to ancient wisdom for current enlightenment. An old rhyme that I learnt as a child regularly pops into my head when I read about OHS problems.
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.
The July 2004 edition of SafetyATWORK magazine contained an interview with Sam Holt the CEO of Australian company Skin Patrol. The fascinating service of Skin Patrol was that they travelled the outback of Australia with a mobile skin cancer testing unit. That is a big area to cover but with the increasing incidence of skin cancer and the acceptance of ultraviolet exposure as an OHS problem, the service seemed timely.
The risks from exposure to ultraviolet are well established and our understanding of the risks have changed considerably within one generation. The Australian culture has changed to one of sun-worshipping to one where the wearing of hats is enforced at school, hard hats have wide brim attachments, and outdoor work is undertaken in long pants and long-sleeved shirts. Occupational control measures have been introduced.
