law – Page 228 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Australia’s OHS Law Review

Last week, the release of the final report of Australia’s review into National Model OHS Law was touted by many as immediately after the meeting of the Workplace Relations Ministers Council (WRMC). This occurred with the first report in 2008. WRMC met in a teleconference yesterday. When the report is released officially (rumours are that the report is already doing the rounds of the unions and the employer associations), SafetyAtWorkBlog will provide a link to the report and some initial commentary.

However, as reported yesterday, the Australian Financial Review obtained a copy of the report and highlighted several issues of interest. The AFR report held no great surprise for safety professionals but the union movement is going to be ideologically tested.

Early in the review process, the New South Wales union movement was very vocal about the risk of losing their right to initiate prosecutions over OHS breaches. The right was rarely applied and could be a very costly exercise. Since that time there has been silence from that quarter, perhaps because they realised that its contentious right was out-of-step with the rest of the country and the review process is all about legislative harmonisation.

According to media reports this week, the Review Panel’s final report recommends the omission of the right to prosecute but allows an option to instigate prosecutions through the OHS regulators. In effect it keeps the power where it is most cost-effective and through which a similar outcome could be achieved. It gives the unions a seat at the table, just not the same seat but still with a comfy cushion.

Prior to the WRMC meeting, Sharan Burrows issued a media statement on several matters, the source of the ACTU quotes in today’s AFR article, in which she said

Media reports also suggest that the Ministers will tonight discuss the final report of the National Review of OHS Laws.

“It is vital that the national, harmonised health and safety laws are based on the highest possible standards. This should include providing workers with the right, through their unions, to initiate prosecutions against employers when there are serious health and safety breaches.

“In the past, union prosecutions have been few in number but have secured important improvements for employees who work in potentially dangerous situations. We also need a truly tripartite, well resourced national workplace health and safety watchdog that is able to set, monitor and upgrade health and safety standards,” said Ms Burrow.

It seems that Ms Burrows may, pragmatically, welcome the cushion.

Also, the union movement would be well aware of the potential boost to the revenues of OHS training providers, a status many unions and union bodies enjoy. A national five-day training course for Health & Safety Representatives could be financially useful. Also the courses have always been a very good recruiting opportunity.

Kevin Jones

Sharan Burrows speaking at the 2008 Workers' Memorial in Melbourne

National OHS report leaked to Australian newspaper

The Australian Financial Review has obtained a copy of the 470-page report of the Review Panel into OHS Model Law prior to its release by the Australian government.

The most significant recommendation reported by the paper is that unions will not be allowed to prosecute for OHS offences. This entitlement by unions in New South Wales has been a constant source of industrial tension in that State. However the panel did suggest that anyone can request OHS regulators to undertake a prosecution or they can appeal a regulator’s decision not to prosecute.

Employers across Australia will be obliged to provide paid leave for employees to attend health and safety representative training courses – probably five days.

The proposed legislation also allows for common law rights to stop work if it is deemed unsafe.

The full AFR article is not available online but can be found on page 3 of the hard copy.

Kevin Jones

Union influence on OHS – interview with Professor Michael Quinlan

Professor Michael Quinlan of the University of New South Wales believes that the influence of Australian trade unions in improving OHS conditions should not be underestimated or past achievements, forgotten.

In talking with Kevin Jones in a recent podcast, Quinlan said that the persistent accusation of unions using OHS as an industrial relations tool is “largely an ideological beat-up”. Although he does believe that Australian trade unions have not pursued workplace hazards to the extent they should have, even with the impeding launch of a campaign on cancers.

Professor Quinlan mentioned that

“most health and safety management systems are, in fact, largely management safety systems. They not deal a lot with health….. Their KPIs [Key Performance Indicators] are always expressed in terms of zero-injuries or zero-harm.”

He also emphasised that that more Australian workers are killed as a result of occupational disease than injury.

He also addresses the growing demand for occupational health and safety regulation to move from industrial relations to the area of health. Quinlan believes this will never happen because matters to do with employment, organisational restructuring and others have an OHS impact. He says that running OHS as “an entirely separate agenda…is intellectually and factually flawed.”

Quinlan acknowledges the argument that Robens-style legislation was relevant for the time and where union-presence persists but he said

“where you don’t have effective or worker input, you will have serious problems with health and safety”.

He reminded us that Roben’s also advocated self-regulation, a concept of which there is now great suspicion in a range of business areas.

Quinlan spoke highly of some of the initiatives of OHS regulation, for instance, the adaptation of the inspectorate to duty-of-care matters and a broader operational brief. He also said that the current OHS legislation in Australia “is the best we’ve ever had” and believes some of the recent criticism needs to be supported by evidence. Also none of the critics have proposed a viable alternative.

Professor Quinlan is a keynote speaker on Day 3 of the Safety In Action conference.

Kevin Jones

Note: the author assists the Safety Institute in the promotion of the Safety in Action conferences.

Comcare’s new role

The scuttlebutt in some Australian OHS circles is that Australia’s Comcare agency will be given a major upgrade through the National OHS Review recommendations that is nearing completion.

Although the Minister for Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard, did not name the new agency that she intends to introduce through the Coalition of Australian Governments process, SafetyAtWorkBlog believes that Comcare will be upgraded to a fully functional national OHS authority.

Coincidentally, Comcare has begun promoting a series of national seminars for the month of March 2009. According to the promotional blurb:

“During the seminar, participants will engage in workshops and listen to presentations from speakers from across the Comcare scheme as well as Comcare’s OHS Compliance Assistance and Prevention & Injury Management Services teams.”

If Comcare’s new status is announced prior to the seminars, I would suggest the seminars will be sold-out quickly.

Kevin Jones

How to talk safety

Safety advocates often say that safety begins at the top. Yet few CEO’s will talk overtly and publicly about safety to the extent that Janet Holmes a Court has in Australia. Janet is a rarity but John Bresland of the United States Chemical Safety Board is making a good attempt through YouTube technology.

In January 2009, Bresland has produced on of CSB’s “safety messages” and, he is not afraid to criticise his political colleagues.

In the latest safety message he criticises those American states who do not allow state employees to be covered by federal OHS legislation and he uses an actual fatality incident to make the point very clear.

For those outside of the US, the video is a good example of a safety advocate putting his face out there and broadcasting about safety to his constituents and interested parties. Political criticism is seen as valid in this case due to Bresland pointing out an anomaly and showing how an anomaly can kill, injure and maim.

Too many senior executives and professional associations are scared of making political statements even though they support the mission statement of their organisation. This is an immature position based on insecurity – a quality that should have no place in the coordination of corporations and professional bodies.

Branding is a worthwhile process but it will only succeed if what is being promoted has substance. The Chemical Safety Bureau has been a solid platform for education and safety improvement for years and deserves support by OHS professionals learning the lessons being shared and displayed.

Kevin Jones

Government report into plastics and chemicals

Australia’s Productivity Commission has released a report into the national regulation of plastics and chemicals. The supplementary report has additional topicality as it is released a week before the Review Panel into Model OHS Law presents its report to the government. The key points of the Productivity Commission report are

“The Productivity Commission has recently completed a research report on the regulation of chemicals and plastics in Australia. In most cases, national approaches to regulation were found to deliver significant benefits compared with each state and territory pursuing its own approach. This supplementary paper provides a more detailed examination of some of the features of these national arrangements.
National approaches to regulation should draw on the strengths of each level of government:
- Commonwealth, state and territory governments acting together through Ministerial Councils or other forums can provide leadership and policy frameworks for national issues.
- The Australian Government may be best placed to play a role in policy coordination, and to undertake national risk assessments.
- State and territory governments are often best placed to enforce regulations and respond to the needs of sub-national constituencies.
Improvements in national consistency can be achieved through a range of mechanisms, including through jurisdictions:
- adopting uniform regulations
- harmonising key elements of their regulatory frameworks
- mutually recognising other jurisdictions’ regulations.
In chemicals and plastics, the most common legislative mechanisms for achieving national consistency have been to use template or model legislation, regulations and codes of practice. The template and model approaches can be effective, but both have their weaknesses.
Because the process of developing and implementing nationally-consistent regulations can be costly and drawn out, reform should only be pursued where there are prospects of material net benefits.
In the past, the Commonwealth has provided incentives for state and territory governments to forgo some sovereignty so as to achieve the benefits of national consistency. This approach was effective in encouraging and enabling the reform process.”

The report recommends that national intergovernmental bodies set policy, the national government coordinates policy and the States enforce it.

The three mechanisms for consistency will be familiar to safety professionals and OHS advocates.

“adopting uniform regulations” – already being investigated through the national review panel
“harmonising key elements of their regulatory frameworks” – this was flagged almost two decades ago by the National OHS Commission and work in some industrial and regulatory areas has been completed on this
“mutually recognising other jurisdictions’ regulations” – the east coast states have already achieved this with some of their licencing. OHS regulators in New South Wales are already co-producing and co-badging OHS guidelines

Although the development and implementation of legislation should not be dictated to by economics, the review panel came about through a push to reduce red tape and business costs so it is unlikely that any suggestion that may increase cost to business will appear, particularly as the Prime Minister is reiterating the hard financial challenges we all face.

The risk in an approach where

“reform should only be pursued where there are prospects of material net benefits”

is that important long-term improvements can be ignored or, worse, dismissed.

The last point above seems to support the recent statements by the Minister for Workplace Relations, Julia Gillard, on achieving trade-offs, some would say pay-offs, at state level in order to achieve change through the intergovernmental consultative structures.

It is important to note that the Productivity Commission’s report is not about OHS but industrial regulation. The release of the Commission’s report is likely to be a coincidence but, for some sectors, it can be seen as preparatory for the OHS Law Review Panel’s final report.

Kevin Jones

Gillard’s plans for new OHS agency – response

It was predictable for the Opposition party to accuse Julia Gillard of arrogance for bypassing the Parliamentary process. Senator Eric Abetz wrote to the letters page of AFR on 21 January 2009, the text of the letter is below (although there were slight changes in the published version)

“It is highly arrogant and misleading for Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard to blame the so-called “intransigent” Senate and the Opposition for the delay in implementing harmonised OH&S laws (‘Gillard defies Senate on work safety”, 20th January 2009).

As the Shadow Minister who dealt with the issue in the Senate, I know that the facts of the matter are that what you might regard as an unlikely alliance of the Coalition, Family First, the Greens, Senator Xenophon, the ACCI and the ACTU (yes, even the ACTU) all agreed that the amendments proposed and passed by the Senate were necessary.

Unfortunately, our offer to meet with Ms Gillard to negotiate a way forward on this matter was rejected by a Minister who apparently thinks “it’s my way or the highway”. It is indicative of the disregard that the Rudd Government shows for the Parliament and the Senate is that it is now seeking to circumvent it on this important matter.”

The risk from the Gillard strategy is that once the process is completed the regulatory agency will forever be accused of being illegitimate, or a political ideological construct, having not undergone due process through Parliament. The Labor government needs to look beyond political expediency to construct a national OHS regulatory body of which noone can object.

Comment continues to be sought from the labour movement and opposition political parties.

Kevin Jones

Category: law

Australia’s OHS Law Review

Like this:

National OHS report leaked to Australian newspaper

Like this:

Union influence on OHS – interview with Professor Michael Quinlan

Note: the author assists the Safety Institute in the promotion of the Safety in Action conferences.

Like this:

Comcare’s new role

Like this:

How to talk safety

Like this:

Government report into plastics and chemicals

Like this:

Gillard’s plans for new OHS agency – response

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Note: the author assists the Safety Institute in the promotion of the Safety in Action conferences.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: