Politicians are exploiting proposed OHS laws for their own benefit

South Australia’s Industrial Relations Minister, Rob Lucas, stated in the Adelaide Advertiser on 3 October 2011 that

“The Liberal Party has always supported strong work safety laws which protect workers at work sites.”

This may be the case within the limitations of that sentence but the conservative political parties have not always been supportive of the basis for safety management, the creation of evidence through authoritative research.  According to a 2003 submission by the Australian Council of Trade Unions

“After the election of the Liberal/National Coalition in 1996, the Federal Government decided that:

  • the NOHSC budget must be cut by $5.9 million each year;
  • a further 5% cut was imposed across the board; and
  • redundancies had to be covered from within the NOHSC budget.

This represented a cut of $6.6 million (35-40%) to the NOHSC annual budget……

The April 1996 NOHSC decision on allocation of its $14 million budget cut OHS research and information, and education and training. National standards work was also decreased. These areas are central to a national approach to OHS.” [emphasis added]

Around the time of these severe budget cuts Australia had begun moving to a system of national uniformity in OHS.  The impact of this political decision hamstrung the research efforts of NOHSC just as the uniformity momentum was increasing.  As the National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation has written

“A notable development in standard setting in Australia during the 1990s was the movement towards national uniformity in standards in regulations and codes of practice. The process was overseen by the former NOHSC, which in 1991 established a tripartite National Uniformity Taskforce, which identified several key first order priorities for achieving national uniformity: plant, certification of users and operators of industrial equipment; workplace hazardous substances; occupational noise; manual handling; major hazardous facilities; and storage and handling of dangerous goods.

NOHSC developed standards in the first six of these areas, and the jurisdictions were well on the way towards adopting these standards by the end of 1996, although it should be noted that jurisdictions were quite inconsistent in their adoption, particular in choosing whether to implement the standards in regulations or codes of practice, in their drafting styles and, in some cases, the substance of provisions. The national uniformity process was not complete when the Howard government came to power in 1996, and that government first significantly down-sized and then abolished NOHSC, with the result that the move towards national uniformity slowed dramatically after mid-1996.”

Rob Lucas seems to ignore the history of his own party’s decision. Continue reading “Politicians are exploiting proposed OHS laws for their own benefit”

Trade unions enter debate on profits vs safety

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) has issued a media release aimed at addressing or countering some of the concerns over new OHS laws expressed by the business community and some politicians recently.

Ged Kearney

ACTU President Ged Kearney has said

“Attempts by employer groups to weaken the new regulations are yet another example of business putting profits before safety….. Employer groups called for a national set of health and safety laws, and we would have thought that business would welcome a tough approach to OHS regulations.”

Sympathy for business is unlikely from the union movement but some sympathy is warranted.   Australian business was promised that new work health and safety laws would reduce the business costs of complying with laws that differed from across a number of jurisdictions.  As companies begin to assess the impacts of new laws on their own business operations, as all companies surely must do, they are noticing additional costs for compliance. Continue reading “Trade unions enter debate on profits vs safety”

Safe Work Australia at Senate Estimates – harmonisation latest

Rex Hoy of Safe Work Australia (SWA) spoke on 1 June 2010 at the Australian Senate Estimates hearing (around page 44) and confirmed progress on the draft OHS regulations and codes of practice.  The draft Hansard reports Hoy saying:

“Just to cover the areas we are working on: there will be model regulations covering administrative arrangements to support the model act, major hazards facilities, licensing of high-risk work, workplace hazardous chemicals, occupational diving, noise, working in confined spaces, performing manual tasks and induction training for construction work.  There may well be more, depending on finishing this process. Continue reading “Safe Work Australia at Senate Estimates – harmonisation latest”

Important OHS law reformer, Jeff Shaw, dies

Around 15 years ago, occupational health and safety law in New South Wales looked exciting.  The NSW Standing Committee on Law & Justice was  investigating OHS, and not just the laws.  There was a potential for the inquiry to make New South Wales a leader in innovation in this sector.

On 11 May 2010, the news broke that a leading supporter for the review, Jeff Shaw, had died.  Although his legal career ended in controversial fashion, Shaw’s activities in relation to industrial relations and OHS were notable.  SafetyAtWorkBlog looks briefly at Jeff Shaw’s OHS legacy. Continue reading “Important OHS law reformer, Jeff Shaw, dies”

Union view of OHS harmonisation and data on the social cost of workplace safety

The national OHS Officer of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Deborah Vallance, provided her perspective on the tweaking of Australia’s OHS laws to the StickTogether radio program on 25 April 2010.  (The interview is at the 16 minute mark in the podcast)

Vallance says that the complexity and overlap of laws is often overstated but that there are benefits for licencing systems related to workplaces.  She casts doubt on the significance of the reforms leading to a “seamless economy” regularly spruiked by government ministers. Continue reading “Union view of OHS harmonisation and data on the social cost of workplace safety”

Information flow is critical for sound Board decisions on OHS

Peter Arthur, a Partner with Australian law firm, Allens Arthur Robinson, spoke on Boardroom Radio on 1 April 2010 about new duties that national OHS laws will place on Directors.

Although there are six elements in the new general duty, Arthur says that they all can come under the category of “information flow”.   Continue reading “Information flow is critical for sound Board decisions on OHS”

OHS due diligence and safety management

In the February 2010 newsletter for Australian law firm, DLAPhillips Fox, Andrew Ball and Donna Trembath wrote about one of the important elements of the model Work, Health & Safety Act – due diligence.   We look at how SafetyAtWorkBlog and other OHS information services can support due diligence on OHS matters.

Ball and Trembath list 6 elements in the definition of due diligence (in bold):

Acquire and have up to date knowledge of work OHS matters.

This first element is where business and OHS information sources are going to be crucial supporters.  OHS law in Australia has always supported the need for companies and safety professionals to maintain a current state of knowledge.  There have always been newsletters on OHS issues but it is very easy to fall into a habit of reading only the information that will assist one in their job rather than getting information that relates to safety throughout a workplace.  The use of Health & Safety representatives or OHS Committees can be important in maintaining a “corporate” state of knowledge.  Delegation of reading information can be very useful and HSRs and OHS Committees are probably the most neglected preventative tools in the safety professionals toolbox. Continue reading “OHS due diligence and safety management”

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