The Australian Treasurer,
The operation of the European Union is a mystery to everyone outside the EU and to most people in the EU. Any organisation that juggles the legislation of over 20 countries has a thankless task but some of the work being undertaken by occupational health and safety (OHS) advocates provides a clarity on power relationships between employers and workers. I never tire of reading articles and editorials by Laurent Vogel of the European Trade Union Institute. Below is an excerpt from his editorial in the Autumn-Winter 2015 edition of HesaMag: Continue reading “Can OHS achieve change in a neoliberal world?”
New Labor Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, has announced a review into the Victorian Workcover Authority (VWA) and the Transport Accident Commission (TAC). No terms of reference for the inquiry are being released other than the brief mention in the media release of :
“…identify opportunities to optimise the effectiveness, efficiency and value of these organisations to the Victorian community.”
This inquiry has been mooted for some time but the lack of detail is curious, as could be the choice for the inquiry’s head. There is no doubt that James MacKenzie has great knowledge about the workings of VWA and TAC as he was CEO of the TAC from 1994-97 and the Chairman of both TAC and WorkSafe Victoria from 2000-07. Mackenzie was on the Board until around 2010 and was thanked profusely by VWA’s Elana Rubin in the 2011 Annual Report:
“On behalf of WorkSafe I would particularly like to acknowledge James MacKenzie’s work in the governance and management of personal injury schemes in Victoria. James served on the Board for over a decade, of which six years he was Chair. During that time he led the transformation of WorkSafe.” (page 4)
Although MacKenzie seems to have had no direct role in the area for the last four years or so, his direct experience could also be considered an impediment, particularly if he “led the transformation of WorkSafe”. Continue reading “Victoria’s WorkSafe to be reviewed”
Official statistics on workplace bullying in Australia are notoriously unreliable. The Productivity Commission estimated the cost of workplace bullying with a huge margin of variation, between A$6 billion and A$36 billion annually. WorkSafe Victoria has indicated in the past that the number of interventions on workplace bullying is way below the number of workplace bullying complaints. On 29 October 2103, in a long discussion on workplace bullying the Australian Capital Territory’s Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher stated:
“According to reports from the Commissioner for Public Administration, reports of bullying and harassment have totalled 68 cases in 2010-11, 71 in 2011-12, and 118 cases in the financial year that has just passed, 2012-13. Proven cases of bullying have numbered four, eight 11 and 19 respectively. This amounts to complaints being made by 0.5 per cent of staff, and substantiated in relation to 0.08 per cent of staff.” (Hansard, page P3930, emphasis added)
These latest statistics, in conjunction with those previously reported, indicate that the perception of workplace bullying is much higher than the reality in Australia. Continue reading “Fair Work Commission girds its loins for workplace bullying complaints”
The investigation into workplace deaths associated with Australia’s Home Insulation Program (HIP) was refreshed yesterday with the publication of some of the terms of reference for a new Government inquiry into the program. The HIP deaths is an enormously politically charged issue in Australia and the politics, and associated media attention, could derail an inquiry that has the potential to provide important occupational health and safety, risk management and governance issues.
Greg Hunt, Environment Minister is quoted as saying that
“The Government is committed to a full inquiry into Kevin Rudd’s home insulation scheme that was linked to the tragic loss of four young lives,….”
According to the Courier-Mail newspaper on 27 October 2013 there will be ten elements in the terms of reference but only four are mentioned:
- The process and basis of government decisions while establishing the program, including risk assessment and risk management;
- Whether the death of the four men could have been avoided;
- What if any advice or undertakings given by the government to the industry were inaccurate or deficient, and;
- What steps the government should have taken to avoid the tragedies.
These four seem reasonable aims but this information has been leaked, the full terms of reference have not been released and a person to head the inquiry is yet to be announced.