lawyers – Page 23 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

OHS harmonisation may be dead, so who will pick up the pieces?

One of the best summaries of the current status of the new Australian Work Health and Safety laws was published in The Australian newspaper on 27 January 2012 (not available without a subscription). Lawyers from Norton Rose, Michael Tooma, Alena Titterton and Melissa Cornell, express doubts that harmonisation of national safety laws is possible. They write:

“At this point in time, it looks unlikely that harmonisation will be achieved at any time during 2012, if it is ever achieved at all.”

The question needs to be asked whether the whole harmonisation process has been waste of time of whether some good has resulted from all the effort. Prior to Christmas 2011, some legal commentators were satisfied that the harmonisation process had “lifted” several States’ OHS laws to a contemporary standard but the aim of harmonisation, indeed the “promise” of harmonisation was so much more.

Australian businesses that operate over multiple jurisdictions are justified in pointing the finger of blame at the ultra-conservative business groups, lobbyists and alarmists for stifling a very promising reform. The administrative process could have been handled much better but each government had signed commitments to reform from which many are now weaseling out of. Regardless of subsequent changes of government, these commitments should have been upheld.

Tooma, Titterton and Cornell summarise by writing:

“For legislative reform that was meant to be about providing clarity to a complex area with differing standards across multiple jurisdictions, after four years of significant effort, it appears we may have been merely gifted more confusion and simply a different set of differences. Continue reading “OHS harmonisation may be dead, so who will pick up the pieces?”

UK’s approach to OHS reform is flawed by short-term political strategy

England’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, has described OHS as a “monster” in a speech to small business owners on 5 January 2012. It is important to note the PM’s comments prior to his monster reference that have not been repeated in the mainstream press. He refers to

“… a great big machine of health and safety that has built up over years.”

Cameron feels that he needs to address an OHS regulatory system and enforcement strategies that have become too complex for, particularly, small business to comply with. Part of his solution is to exempt the self-employed, in some specific sectors, from OHS laws. This is a questionable decision as it effectively establishes a two-tier safety management regime and sets a precedent for other similar sectors to lobby for an exemption from other, perceived, onerous laws.

It may be that OHS laws in the UK have become overly complicated over time but the role of the media must be considered in that it has focussed on many absurd managerial decisions that have resulted from a skewed understanding of OHS and risk. Frequently the media reports have no relation to OHS laws and all to do with an increasing litigious society and the pursuit of money through, potentially spurious, public liability insurance claims.

In the 5 January 2012 speech Cameron states that

“…the key about health and safety is not just the rules and the laws and the regulations – it is also the culture of fear many businesses have about health and safety.” (emphasis added)

Cameron explains his answer for reducing this fear of health and safety, the capping of fees that lawyers can earn from legal action against businesses on behalf of their clients, usually, employees. There is no fear of health and safety, it is a fear of litigation. Cameron is not on about OHS law reform, his concern is about “unnecessary” litigation costs. This is unlikely to be reduced by cutting the budget of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) which must reduce services as the HSE resources have been contracting for some time. Continue reading “UK’s approach to OHS reform is flawed by short-term political strategy”

Lawyer says OHS harmonisation has become a shambles

The 28 December 2011 edition of the Australian Financial Review (AFR) (not available online) quotes Australian labour lawyer, Michael Tooma, talking about the harmonisation of workplace safety laws:

“It’s descended into a farce, a shambles – only four jurisdictions are ready for the laws.”

This seems supported by the words of the recently-appointed Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, who says that the new Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) laws will cover 58% of the workforce. This also equates to 42% NOT being covered – hardly a success for harmony.

Victoria’s WorkCover Minister, Gordon Rich-Phillips, continues to miss the point of national harmonisation by continuing to argue against harmonisation with parochialism. He says that the new laws are very likely to increase the regulatory and cost burden without acknowledging that Victoria has many prominent businesses who operate nationally and will incur increased compliance costs due to his delay in the implementation of the harmonised laws.

The AFR article implies that a major reason for objection is that senior executives, the ridiculously named “C-suite”, will face increased accountability for decisions that affect worker safety. Perhaps, but this increase has been coming for some time and should have been anticipated by the C-suite.

The article also implies that hesitation over these laws comes from the increased accountability of senior public servants and departmental heads. Tooma acknowledges this change:

“To date, heads of departments in the public service have never been able to be held criminally liable under federal laws.”

The public service is going to be a fierce battleground considering that psychosocial issues are so prevalent in this sector. It will be fascinating (and sad) to watch senior executives in government departments being prosecuted under OHS laws for workplace bullying, excessive workloads and the generation of stress. (The size of the challenge may be seen by recent bullying issues in the Australian emergency services, WorkSafe Victoria and WorkCover NSW)

The AFR has been one of the very few newspapers reporting on OHS harmonisation but, not surprising given its specialized readership, it has focused on the business costs of implementation. Rarely has it discussed the positive benefits to safety management or the potential increase in worker safety. Perhaps there are none.

There is little safety innovation in the new laws. If OHS is about preventing harm, these laws are no improvement on the previous.

But then safety has rarely come from laws but from how people react to, or apply, the laws. The debate on harmonisation has been missing the voice of the safety profession in Australia but perhaps that’s because there is nothing new to say. Perhaps the management of safety will not have any fundamental change. It may be that the only change is that the CEOs begin to listen to their OHS advisers. Let’s hope that is enough.

Kevin Jones

Labor lawyer raises strong concerns over new Work Health and Safety laws

Yesterday morning, Mike Hammond of the Australian law firm, Norton Rose, conducted a seminar on the harmonisation of Australia’s work health and safety laws. This was the last in the current series of seminars on this topic but Hammond’s seminar differed considerably from previous sessions. Hammond is clearly less than enamoured with the model Work Safety and Health Act, describing parts of the legislation as “bad law” and asking whether the laws were examples of “social engineering”.

Understandably, these comments generated considerable discussion from the audience of around 50 people.

The crucial nub of Hammond’s concerns was the lack of essential definitions in the model law. Continue reading “Labor lawyer raises strong concerns over new Work Health and Safety laws”

Opinion to HIA based on estimates, assumptions and unverified data

The SafetyAtWorkBlog inbox this afternoon received a document entitled “The Work Health Safety Bill – Review and Economic Impact Estimates” by consulting firm, Hudson Howells. SafetyAtWorkBlog has been advised that this report was recently prepared at short notice on behalf of the Housing Industry Association (HIA). It may be one of the documents seen by at least one South Australian Parliamentarian in the recent debate on OHS harmonisation, as reported in a blog article earlier today.

The document provides some background to the HIA’s claims that the costs of domestic housing may increase by around $A20,000 per dwelling due to the introduction of harmonised workplace health and safety laws in South Australia. Continue reading “Opinion to HIA based on estimates, assumptions and unverified data”

South Australia’s postponement of harmonisation shows the political weaknesses of the process

South Australia’s Parliament has delayed the introduction of its Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act until 2012 by postponing debate on the WHS Bill until February 2012. The instigator for this action was the opposition (Liberal) parliamentarian, Rob Lucas, who SafetyAtWorkBlog has written about previously.

Lucas has issued a media release that states

“The Weatherill Government has continued to ignore the growing concern from industry organisations about the impact on housing affordability and the costs of doing business. Employer groups such as Business SA, the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Association, Motor Traders Association, Australian Hotels Association, Civil Contractors Federation, Self Insurers of South Australia, and Independent Contractors Australia are all supporting significant amendments to the legislation…..

“It is also now clear there is no prospect of ‘harmonised’ work safety laws operation in all states and territories. Continue reading “South Australia’s postponement of harmonisation shows the political weaknesses of the process”

Quad bike manufacturers withdraw from the safety campaign

The Weekly Times newspaper can feel justifiably chuffed that it has played a significant role in changing some of the attitudes on the safe operation of quad bikes.

It’s front page article on 23 November 2011 reports on a considerable backdown by quad bike manufacturers in Australia on the issue of rollover protection structures (ROPS) or crush protection devices (CPDs). (The cartoon is very funny also) Motorcycle manufacturers have been supporting a campaign and website through the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) but even recent media releases (FCAI MOVES TO DE-BUNK ATV ROLL-OVER PROTECTION MYTHS ) have been removed from the FCAI website and the FCAI spokesperson has been “directed by ATV makers not to discuss the issue” according to the Weekly Times. FCAI’s 2010 position paper on quad bike safety continues to be accessible.

New CEO

SafetyAtWorkBlog has been told that there is industry speculation that the sudden change in policy direction is due to the September 2011 appointment of a new CEO, Ian Chalmers. Continue reading “Quad bike manufacturers withdraw from the safety campaign”

Category: lawyers

OHS harmonisation may be dead, so who will pick up the pieces?

Like this:

UK’s approach to OHS reform is flawed by short-term political strategy

Like this:

Lawyer says OHS harmonisation has become a shambles

Like this:

Labor lawyer raises strong concerns over new Work Health and Safety laws

Like this:

Opinion to HIA based on estimates, assumptions and unverified data

Like this:

South Australia’s postponement of harmonisation shows the political weaknesses of the process

Like this:

Quad bike manufacturers withdraw from the safety campaign

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: