At the moment in Australia there are political statements and arguments about the substantially increased workload that the newly-appointed Labor Government is placing on public servants. There are accusations that leaks have occurred from the public service as a protest to the long working hours that the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, expects. Working hours that, it should be said,…
Workplace safety usually gets little attention from mainstream press. Until recently, with the growth of online specialist content, trade publications covered OHS events, but the lead time made the news events of historical interest more than something that generated enthusiasm or outrage.
Last weekend the Australian Labor Party in Victoria held its annual conference in Melbourne. The Premier, John Brumby, stated that workplace safety was of continuing high concern to his government. This comment was reported nowhere other than the Sunday night (25 May 2008 ) news bulletin of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
The ABC news website has mentioned other comments that the Premier made at the conference:
“It’s vital for workers and for occupational health and safety representatives that they can raise safety issues without suffering recrimination or discrimination,” he said. “Because if people can’t speak up, then people’s lives can be put at risk.”
The comment is very welcome but why make such a statement now? Has an OHS whistleblowing incident happened recently? No. Has the issue been a sore political point? No.
Given that neither the ALP or the Premier’s office has released the Premier’s speech almost a week after the event, it can only be assumed that the comments were intended for the union audience at the conference and were said, mainly, to have something to say.
His comments are a reiteration of party policy and any support for OHS is welcome but if anyone makes a positive comment on workplace safety, let them be loud and proud about it. The OHS profession and worker safety needs the profile.
In an AAP report on 21 May 2008, the Tasmanian coroner has been highly critical of the OHS legislative regime applicable to Tasmanian mines. His comments have particular relevance during Australia’s national review of OHS law and as the coronial inquest into the Beaconsfield mining disaster is due to start within the next six months….
The Australian government has established an Australian Social Inclusion Board. This is what the government says is the purpose and challenges of the Board:
This social exclusion is a significant barrier to sustained prosperity and restricts Australia’s future economic growth.
Promoting social inclusion requires a new way of governing. Australia must rethink how policy and programs across portfolios and levels of government can work together to combat economic and social disadvantage.
The Australian Social Inclusion Board which brings together leaders from around the country, will be instrumental in meeting this challenge.
Tackling disadvantage involves generating effective, practical solutions at the level of government, local communities, of service providers, employers and of families and individuals themselves.
The Australian Social Inclusion Board will consult widely and provide views and advice to the Government.
I am glad that consultation will be broad. Narrow consultation, even in a tripartite structure, is often found to be too narrow and anti-inclusion. It is acknowledged that as good as broad consultation is, change and influence comes from having a seat at the table. I find it disappointing that an independent voice for occupational safety and health is not at the table given the higher rate of death and injury in workplaces of young workers, workers from outside Australia and workers with a poor command of the English language.
It would have been good to see the Australian government look beyond an artificial demarcation of work and non-work. The OHS profession and OHS legislation dumped this demarcation several years ago when we started to deal with psycho-social hazards in the workplace and the impact of workplace hazards on non-work activities.
If there is not a seat at the table, given that the Minister for Social Inclusion is also the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and that the board’s Chair, Ms Patricia Faulkner had an OHS role in the early 1990’s, I would expect safety (both occupational and non-occupational) to be a fixture on the board’s agenda.
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:
The Queensland government has responded to the assessment reports on staff housing which includes the housing in remote locations. The initiatives are good for the most part but it has to be noted that the motivation for action came from foreseeable, unjustified attacks on workers in isolated locations. The safety status of the accommodation was…
Overnight English MP John Prescott “came out” as a bulimia sufferer. Or so the story goes in the British press. But the real story for the occupational health and safety profession is that Prescott’s doctors suggest the contributory factor – stress.
The Telegraph is a little more precise and says that it is unclear why bulimia occurs, that there may be a genetic trait and it often exists “alongside other mental health problems, for example, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, and anxiety”.
The Telegraph also lists potential risk factors as “social and cultural pressures regarding appearance, bullying, low self-esteem and family dysfunction”.
Our reactions to the supposed link between stress and bulimia needs to be carefully considered given there are considerable contrary, or complementary, factors. We should bear this in mind when dubious workplace well-being promoters come knocking on the office doors.
I would suggest that Prescott’s main control measure for bulimia, stress and a range of health issues, including diabetes, was that he left the front bench in 2007.
On the other factors of bulimia, the social and cultural pressures, outside of Britain, Prescott is still only known as that guy who punched someone in a crowd, and that had something to do with food as well – a far more telling manifestation of a stress response, I would have thought.