Australia’s Safety Week

The last week of October each year is Safety Week in Australia.  It exists under different names in each State but everyone coordinates events for the same time each year.  Below are some  links for further information, some are more developed than others.

In 2009, I was a Safety Ambassador for Safe Work Australia and found that if one was prepared to give, the rewards were ten-fold.

If you are in Australia I strongly recommend attending one of the many free OHS information events.  If you are outside Australia, regularly check the Australia OHS regulator websites for some innovative approaches to safety and its promotion.

Queensland

Australia

Victoria

Tasmania

Australian Capital Territory (yes, the ACT has a month of activities)

Western Australia

South Australia

Kevin Jones

IOSH responds to OHS misperceptions

If ever there was an indication that the UK’s Institute of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH) is the leading OHS organisation around the world, its entry into the OHS debate generated by the new UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the inquiry into OHS by Lord Young confirms it.  “Rebalancing Act?” is a terrific summary of the major points of contention in the debate.

But, IOSH is also pursuing a reform that should have a much greater impact on the OHS profession.  It is establishing a professional accreditation scheme that should set the benchmark for other OHS professional associations elsewhere, particularly in Australia.  The scheme is not revolutionary but the process IOSH has used to build the scheme is admirable, especially when compared with the Australian HaSPA program that has stagnated, apparently, due to organisational politics. Continue reading “IOSH responds to OHS misperceptions”

Australian Noise report. Is anyone listening?

Safe Work Australia has released a very important report called “Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss in Australia “.

The report confirms many of the challenges faced by OHS professionals. There is, among others,

  • An over-reliance on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
  • Noise is not taken seriously
  • Effective noise control is undervalued
  • Small and medium-sized companies pay less attention to the hazard
  • Noise control is seen as expensive
  • As hearing damage cannot be repaired, it is seen as inevitable

The report provides a detailed profile of NIHL and many will find the report an invaluable to gaining more attention to control measures in workplaces but just as mental health is both an occupational AND public health matter, so noise is affecting our private lives just as much as it is in our work lives.

As with many government safety reports, change is likely to come not from the report itself but how the media, the community and the OHS professions use the information to affect change.

Kevin Jones

Now is the time for all good OHS lobbyists to come to the aid of their country

Now is the time for the OHS fraternity to lobby local politicians on the importance of workplace safety for the community and business.

Australia is facing a hung Parliament following the 21 August 2010 federal election.  OHS was mentioned early in the campaign but not since even though there were opportunities.  Industrial relations was raised in the election campaign by the Australian Labor Party but the Liberals chose not to play and its IR spokesperson, Eric Abetz, was missing in action.  But OHS law reform has been less about improving the law than about reducing the cost on business (even though the significance of this is argument is highly dubious) and this is where discussion on OHS could have occurred.

The Liberal Party is continuing to assert that “stop the waste” is a positive message as it relates to government spending.  It projects itself as the friend of business and the free-market and has reluctantly accepted the reality of OHS legislation although not the cost of effective compliance.  The Liberals could have used the OHS harmonisation process as an example of an economic reform IT began* but has been supported and progressed through the Rudd/Gillard Labor government.

Now, in a political climate where the Australian Greens and some Independents will hold the balance of power in the Senate and have the chance to form a coalition government with either party, the IR policies of smaller party miners and independents will be crucial for OHS and workplace relations.   Continue reading “Now is the time for all good OHS lobbyists to come to the aid of their country”

Politics overrides safety

Why has the Australian government refused to release the investigation report into the Montara oil spill?

SafetyAtWorkBlog’s interest in this report is principally over the identification of potential risk control measures that could reduce the chances of another deep-sea oil rig exploding or identify any design or safety features that could stop such a savage leak of oil into the community.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported on 12 August 2010 about the devastation to East Timor’s fishing and seaweed industries as a result of the spill in 2009 .  An earlier media report about Indonesia seeking compensation for its seaweed beds is available HERE.

The Australian Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, said on 11 August 2010:

“The lessons to be learned from Montara, and I might say the Gulf [of Mexico], create a clear need in a very sensitive, important national industry, both environmentally, economically and from a health and safety point of view, for a strong single national regulator that’s well resourced and focussed,” ……

This may be the way to go but AAP reports that Ferguson he is refusing to release the investigation report until after the August 2010 general election!! Continue reading “Politics overrides safety”

Confusion over bullying and sexual discrimination on display in air traffic controller media reports

The Australian media is providing considerable coverage to the legal claim by two female workers against Airservices Australia over bullying and sexual discrimination.  Airservices Australia is a government organisation that control aircraft movement over Australian airspace.

The details of the harassment mentioned in the media are quite offensive and have no place in the modern workplace.

There are a couple of OHS related issues that pertain to the legal action and the media articles.  Firstly, the media struggles to differentiate between sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and workplace bullying.  Bullying has the most direct relationship to occupational health and safety but the others generate stress in the workplace and therefore the impacts, if not the actions, fall within the OHS purview.  The Australian Financial Review (AFR) (page 7, not available online) has a headline “Flight controllers sue for sexual discrimination” yet the article reports on bullying.   Continue reading “Confusion over bullying and sexual discrimination on display in air traffic controller media reports”

Australian PM mentions OHS harmonisation in election debate

On Sunday 25 July 2010, during the first debate of Australia’s election campaign, Prime Minister Julia Gillard used OHS harmonisation as an example of an achievement that she has been able to introduce that has benefited the Australian people.

The process is in a public hiatus at the moment that began before the election was called.  Much of the public discussion on harmonisation has concluded and now the stakeholders are developing drafts regulatiosn, codes and guidances behind the scenes in Canberra.

Prime Minister Gillard’s mention of OHS harmonisation should reassure that the government leaders have not forgotten that the process is occurring.  However it is highly unlikely that this issue resonates with the general public but, on this issue, that was not the audience.  Harmonisation was one of the few policy issues that is focussed on business concerns, business costs and has the wide support of the business community.  It does not involve taxes.  It does not (directly) involve industrial relations.  It does not rely on unions for implementation.

The fact that harmonisation has been mentioned in an election campaign debate is reassuring but nothing more than that.  It is an issue that could be used and that few would argue against because if one did, one would be arguing against the safety of people, at least in the understanding of the general public.

The mention is a footnote in the debate and is unlikely to get any mention in the press on Monday morning.  Indeed it is unlikely to get another mention in the election campaign, but it was, and we need to be content with that small win.

Kevin Jones

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