The first issues paper on OHS law reform on a national basis in Australia is now available on line at http://www.nationalohsreview.gov.au/ohs/PublicSubmissions/
Analysis and comment will be provided over the next few weeks. Please feel free to establish discussions on any elements of the review by commenting at SafetyAtWorkBlog.
Over the last few months, the national OHS review panel of Robin Stewart-Crompton, Barry Sherriff and Stephanie Mayman have met with OHS authorities in all the state jurisdictions, various union representatives, and, interestingly, many of the Courts. The panel also attended the recent ACTU conference.
The issues paper for the review will be released on 30 May 2008, the deadline agreed to in the initial review timetable.
The public comment phase will run to 11 July 2008. No public hearings are scheduled. This is disappointing as OHS experts have pointed out that OHS law is probably the only piece of law that workers and managers can readily understand and apply without firstly undertaking a law degree. This means that there are a lot of “bush lawyers” in OHS in Australia but this also means that there is a greater pool of informed opinion to draw from.
Many OHS professionals and practitioners have a better understanding of the application of this law and should be given an opportunity to address the panel in a public forum, if for no better reason than it is the best use of their valuable time. Not everyone who should be heard can devote the necessary time to writing 5,000 word submissions, nor do they have the luxury of being able to charge top dollar on hourly rates for someone else to cover their time.
The national review into OHS law in Australia has started to generate political jostling as individual states start to realise exactly what they may be asked to relinquish. All government departments and jurisdictions try to maintain their authority, influence and turf and the concern with this OHS review is that it may introduce reforms, or at least tweaks, that could derail the more politically important and controversial changes to industrial relations.
The national review into OHS law in Australia has started to generate political jostling as individual states start to realise exactly what they may be asked to relinquish. All government departments and jurisdictions try to maintain their authority, influence and turf and the concern with this OHS review is that it may introduce reforms, or at least tweaks, that could derail the more politically important and controversial changes to industrial relations.
The argy-bargy about uniformity of OHS legislation continued this week and, again, stems from issues in New South Wales.
According to a report in the Australian Financial Review on May 19 2008 (sorry there is no hyperlink, Fairfax Media insists of payment for online AFR content), the CEO of the National Road Transport Operator’s Association , Bernard Belacic said
the reality is for an employer in the trucking industry, we’ve got a raft of regulations to comply with. In NSW, we’ve got four different [driver] fatigue regimes. As an employer, even as a driver…..which one do you comply with?
Let’s not get silly about duplicating efforts and creating further layers of regulation. If safety isn’t addressed properly through the OH&S framework, well, let’s fix that.
He was responding to the ACTU’s desire to have OHS incorporated into the NSW industrial awards for negotiation.
I agree that additional levels of legislation and regulation are probably not required however several trucking companies are continuing their swap to the national worker’s compensation system, permission for which was squeaked in before the Howard Government was voted out. I cannot understand why the companies would want to continue with this action when further moves from the state to federal systems have been frozen, the OHS regulatory system is under government review, and such action would be inflammatory and very possibly short-term.
Many companies put a great store in worker’s compensation, probably because it is so expensive. But I judge a company’s commitment to it’s workforce on the basis of injury prevention not compensation.
Below are some publicly-available infoation on the latest companies moving to the Comcare system:
Everyone is eagerly anticipating the issues paper of Australia’s review into model OHS law but talking with many people at the SIA08 conference this week, it seems that people are anticipating more from the review than the review was established. The review will be looking at OHS law and law establishes the parameters for managing workplace safety. However, OHS law is what underpins safety management and it is easy to focus on the law to the detriment of managing safety in workplaces.
Employers don’t need to be familiar with the intricacies of OHS law. They need to understand their legal obligations. Legal advice is usually sought if something goes wrong. So how will the current OHS law review change how we manage safety? I asked Tracey Browne of the Australian Industry Group for her opinion. Tracey said the review “has the potential to be revolutionary but everyone needs to realise that changing the law is not going to change anything on its own.”
To progress OHS law many of the issues that have come to dominate discussion over the last 30 years will need to be put aside. Of all the participants in the review process, Tracy believes that the OHS regulators may have the hardest time in achieving this position.
Cathy Butcher of the Victorian Trades Hall agrees that there are considerable agreements on OHS law but she identified some substantial sticking points. In a panel discussion at the Safety In Action Conference she listed the following big differences:
Whether this is an ambit claim will be seen soon through the OHS Law Review process.