Comcare at Senate Estimates – enforcement performance indicators

Comcare is often seen as a minor player in OHS regulation in Australia because, although it has national coverage, it limits its OHS and workers’ compensation activities to specific industrial and public service sectors.  Although it is limited, it has a monopoly in those sectors and is powerful.  Its role in Australia’s harmonisation program seems to be just another OHS regulator but it has a unique role and structure.

Recently, Comcare’s CEO, Paul O’Connor, and Deputy CEO, Steve Kibble, addressed the Australian Senate’s Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee in the annual Estimates hearings.  Hansard reports Kibble’s comments (around page 32) on the enforcement activity of Comcare:

“Comcare has initiated 16 civil court proceedings in relation to alleged breaches of the OHS Act since 2004…..

Recent prosecutions include a matter in relation to a federal agent of the Australian Federal Police for a breach of his individual duties of care.   Continue reading “Comcare at Senate Estimates – enforcement performance indicators”

Independent safety investigation into BP’s Gulf disaster requested by Congress

On 8 July 2010 the United States government asked its Chemical Safety Board (CSB) to consider investigating the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  It would be good news for safety and the environment for the CSB to take on this role.

Primarily, CSB is well placed to consider any issues concerning the safety management structure and culture of BP that may have contributed to the environmental disaster and the deaths of 11 workers on the rig.  As the CSB media statement outlines

“The CSB thoroughly investigated the BP Texas City refinery explosion of 2005 and issued a lengthy report and hour-long CSB Safety Video following our investigation, and as the letter from the committee chairmen states, we would be in a unique position to address numerous questions about BP’s safety culture and practices, and to answer the questions outlined in the House committee letter today.”

The letter from the chairman of the US Congress’ Committee on Energy and Commerce, Henry Waxman, has asked the CSB to consider the following questions

Does corporate leadership equate to political leadership?

Can a country be run in a similar way to running a business?  Does corporate leadership equate to political leadership?  It would be possible to find examples in support of both these questions and as much evidence to counter them but the contextual difference is important to note when considering leadership in general.

A crucial difference in the two sectors is that the corporate executive or CEO must operate to the satisfaction of the shareholders, regardless of the humanistic and social veneer applied.  A politician or a Prime Minister must serve for the benefit of the people, regardless of the political views held as this social obligation originates with the public office.  Politicians have wriggle room not afforded to CEOs because not all the citizens subscribe to the same values.  In the corporate world there is a clearly visible commitment to capitalism, a clarity not possible in the political world.

At the moment in England, it seems that the newly elected coalition government is starting to prepare for a social capitalism – capitalism with a human edge.  The path to economic restabilisation will be difficult and, according to the newspapers on 8 June 2010, the government is set to call on the services of the former CEO of BP, Lord John Browne.

Browne has graced the pages of the SafetyAtWorkBlog twice previously and not in flattering terms.  One writer said Browne:

“…. was admired by his peers but not as much as he was by himself….” [who] “…As CEO … surrounded himself with sycophants and yes-men enshrouded in a cloud of corporate hubris.”

Continue reading “Does corporate leadership equate to political leadership?”

The contract for building safe trains is a “dud” according to CEO

The Australian business newspapers and websites are all reporting on the  “dud” contract that Downer EDI has been saddled with over the construction of 78 eight-car trains for New South Wales’ RailCorp.  Market analysts say that company has lost $A1.7 billion in value this year.

CEO Geoff Knox, a man in genuine risk of becoming unemployed, is quoted as saying:

“We do seem to be able to build trains successfully and make good money on other states in this country, but in this state we seem to not do well and others seem to not do well…”

Others can discuss the financial problems of Downer EDI but Knox seems to only look at the contract rather than the reasons behind the “time consuming” design requirements of the contract – The Waterfall rail disaster of January 2003, the commission of inquiry’s reports and the government’s promises.

Continue reading “The contract for building safe trains is a “dud” according to CEO”

A wicked OHS problem in more ways than one

A new survey on CEO attitudes to safety has been released by Peter Wagner & Associates entitled “Safety – A Wicked Problem, Leading CEOs discuss their views on OHS transformation“.

There is some interesting information in report but Wagner is being generous in the report’s title.  There are some CEOs who seem knowledgeable on safety management who may be “leading”, but there is at least one participant who would not know safety from clay. Continue reading “A wicked OHS problem in more ways than one”

What is the OHS “public interest”?

On 7 May 2010 Judge Lacava of the County Court of Victoria increased the $A25,000 fine applied to A Bending Company to $A75,000.

WorkSafe’s Acting Director for Health and Safety, Stan Krpan, said in a media release:

“The fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions [DPP] found the original penalty inadequate, and the increase in the fine on appeal, demonstrates the courts’ attitude towards health and safety offences.”

The DPP made the appeal to the County Court after a request for review of the original fine was made by WorkSafe Victoria.  According to the judge’s decision (not yet available online):

“The appeal by the Director is made pursuant to section 84 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. The section gives the Director the power to appeal to this Court “if satisfied that an appeal should be brought in the public interest“.” [emphasis added]

So how was the public interest served by increasing the fine by $A50,000? Continue reading “What is the OHS “public interest”?”

Is illiteracy a big safety risk?

In a couple of years all Australian States will probably have OHS laws which require active consultation on workplace safety matters.  But how effective will the consultation be if a noticeable part of one’s workforce struggles with literacy?

For many years OHS included a gentle and steady push for OHS information to be provided in Languages Other Than English (LOTE).  Many OHS regulators had Codes of Practice providing guidance on how to communicate safety issues to workers who cannot speak or write English.

The Australian Industry Group (AIGroup) has been running a project on improving workplace literacy for some time.  AIGroup sees literacy as a major impediment to productivity and safety.  The ACTU sees the risks posed to one’s safety predominantly.  On 26 May 2010, AIGroup’s CEO Heather Ridout wrote in The Australian newspaper (not available online) about the project and the workplace risks.  A report from the literacy project has found that “low levels of literacy and numeracy were an issue for”:

Labourers and process worker 45%
Apprentices 25%
Technicians 23%
Administrative staff 17%
IT staff 13%

Continue reading “Is illiteracy a big safety risk?”

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