government – Page 24 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Quad bike manufacturers resist the inevitable

Pressure is increasing on the manufacturers of quad bikes in Australia and from a variety of sources.

The Weekly Times newspaper continues, almost fortnightly, to report on the safety debate about the use and design of quad bikes. The 9 June edition has a double-page spread on the issue with many direct quotes from “players” in the debate. The fact that a national rural newspaper has devoted this level of column inches is indicative of the controversy. The Australian metropolitan dailies have not followed this lead but, as we have seen in previous blog posts, major New Zealand papers have covered the issues.

Some Australian government departments are applying the cautionary principle under legislative occupational health and safety (OHS) obligation and have restricted the use of quad bikes pending risk assessments. SafetyAtWorkBlog has heard that one department, New South Wales’ National Parks & Wildlife Service, has passed through the assessment phase and will be fitting Crush Protection Devices (CPDs) to their quad bikes by the end of August 2011.

A source close to the debate has told SafetyAtWorkBlog that

There is an increased likelihood for coroners’ inquests in a number of states;
The quad bike industry has begun formally misrepresenting the value of CPDs in posters, of which several have been provided to quad bike distributors; and
The industry continue to assert that research shows CPDs cause more harm than good but provide no evidence of this. Continue reading “Quad bike manufacturers resist the inevitable”

Do Work Health and Safety regulations comply?

The draft model Work Health and Safety regulations were published for public comment in December last year, but rather than sailing through with general public support (i.e. negligible objection) they were met with incredible public objection, with over 1000 submissions. This astonishing fact begs the question; has something gone wrong in the WHS legislation making process? Or did the Australian public suddenly have nothing better to do than write all those pages?

You may, or may not, be aware that when legislators want to create legislation there are very solid principles and clear guidelines that legislators must comply with. These “rules-for-rule-makers” are provided to us courtesy of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR). And for mine, they are excellent.

The reasons we in Australia have those rules are many but in a nutshell it’s because some governments have over the years proved to be pretty good at creating flawed legislation with unintended or anti-competitive consequences. And some have been pretty good at blustering their rules through to the public and papering over the deficiencies. Continue reading “Do Work Health and Safety regulations comply?”

Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister

“IMPROVED SAFETY FOR URANIUM WORKERS” is the headline of a media release from Australia’s Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson. The 9 June 2011 statement concerns the positive initiative of new health monitoring for those workers in the uranium mining and milling industries, but it also betrays a perspective that is dominant in the thinking of national policymakers.

If we accept that a principal aim of occupational health and safety legislation is the prevention of harm*, then the initiative announced does not improve safety for uranium workers. It collates evidence of harm in preparation for compensation.

Minister Ferguson says

“The health and safety of workers is always our first priority. [If ever there was a statement that is a red flag for suspicion, this is it] The new national register strengthens protections for employees over their working life by ensuring that data for monitoring radiation doses will follow them if they move across jobs and across jurisdictions. Wherever they go in Australia, workers will be able to access records that track complete dose histories to ensure their good health into the future. The national dose register is integral to ensuring we have a world class regulatory regime in place for uranium mining in Australia.”

This quote shows the classic leap from a pledge of no (or minimal) harm to the reality – a register of harm. Continue reading “Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister”

Another government department limits ATV/quad bike use over safety concerns

At the end of May 2011, The Weekly Times newspaper reported that the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment

“has enforced limited use of ATVs by staff while it conducted a risk assessment on their use.”

SafetyAtWorkBlog has learned that a New South Wales government department has taken similar action through to August 2011.

Kevin Jones

Will Brodie’s Law deter workplace bullying?

On 1 June 2011 the Australian television program 7PM Project ran an article about “Brodie’s Law” – an increase in the penalties for bullying and stalking. I was approached to be interviewed for the program due to my comments on this blog. I turned down the opportunity for a number of reasons, my time had already been committed to my family and filming did not fit that commitment but, more importantly, I am dubious about whether Brodie’s Law will have the deterrent effect that many hope for.

The 7PM Project approached an outspoken lawyer on the issue who refused to participate because he felt that his comments would not have fitted the approach favoured by the producer who contacted us. I had similar reservations. When I expressed my opinion about the lack of deterence, one producer acknowledged that this was a position expressed by almost all the people they had approached to participate.

The video of the 7PM Project segment is available online and begins around the 2 minute mark. Significantly occupational health and safety laws were not mentioned in the article. There was no mention of any of the OHS guidances on workplace bullying or of any of the regulator’s programs.

A workplace bullying expert of OHS professional would more likely have recited this definition or at least stressed the importance of repetition.

The speaker they chose for expert opinion on workplace bullying was Grant Brecht. Brecht was asked whether a definition of bullying exists. He answered that the definition relates to where psychological harm is possible. This is true but a crucial element of the definition of workplace bullying was missed in the discussion. According to WorkSafe Victoria:

“Bullying is repeated unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health and safety.” [emphasis added]

Brecht also mentioned the need for individuals to assert themselves in the face of bullying but a detailed look at Brodie Panlock’s case shows that she did assert herself and that she did approach other workers at the cafe for assistance and she did talk to friends about the situation. That none of these actions helped Brodie is a core element of her tragedy. Bullying, as with many workplace hazards, is best dealt with by not allowing it to take root in any workplace from the very beginning of a business’ operation. Too many try to retrofit safety into an already toxic and dysfunctional workplace.

The 7PM Project also ran some dubious re-enactments of workplace bullying and, incongruously, some footage of a construction site?! Continue reading “Will Brodie’s Law deter workplace bullying?”

The best workers’ compensation option is prevention.

The CEO of South Australia’s WorkCover Corporation, Rob Thomson, has participated in a long interview with the online newspaper inDaily on 1 June 2011. In the article Thomson addresses many of the recent criticisms of his organisation and the sole WorkCover agent, Employers Mutual Limited, but a telling OHS comment occurs in the last couple of paragraphs of the article:

“He took a simplistic approach to changing the culture and performance of the corporation, he said.
“What I am really trying to say is you need to get the right medical treatment and support for people if they are injured, and the best option is prevention.
“To me prevention is ultimately what this is all about. The fewer claims there are, the better it is for the employer, the worker, the rest of society.”

It is very positive that a CEO emphasises the importance of preventing injuries and it will be very interesting to watch the prevention initiatives that the WorkCover Corporation instigates. It is hoped that Rob Thomson is not thinking about the Commercial Kitchens Campaign that he recently launched. Continue reading “The best workers’ compensation option is prevention.”

SafeWorkSA responds to Gottliebsen OHS article

On 23 May 2011, prominent Australian business writer, Robert Gottliebsen published an article in BusinessSpectator entitled “Saying no to Canberra’s IR dopes“. The article was uncharacteristically contained major errors on the application of new harmonised OHS laws.

The article generated considerable discussion on some Australian OHS discussion forums but the article’s website has attracted only one comment. SafetyAtWorkBlog is in possession of a copy of the full reply sent to BusinessSpectator by SafeWorkSA, the OHS regulator in South Australia, a state that featured in Gottliebsen’s article. SafeworkSA’s reply is reproduced below as it is yet to appear on the BusinessSpectator website, a week after it was sent.

“From: Bryan Russell, Director of Strategic Interventions, SafeWork SA & SA Representative on the Strategic Issues Group – OHS with Safe Work Australia.

Robert Gottliebsen’s commentary of 23 May on South Australia’s actions regarding the Model Work Health and Safety Bill contains several serious errors that need to be addressed.

For the record, let me emphasise the following.

The Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 was reintroduced to the South Australian Parliament on 19 May 2011.

The Bill was tabled in the same form before the Legislative Assembly (Lower House), where the current Minister for Industrial Relations, Patrick Conlon, sits.

The SA Government is on the record as stating that the Bill was withdrawn from the Legislative Council (Upper House) on 3 May 2011 due to the recent change of Ministers.

Contrary to Mr. Gottliebsen’s assertions, we have observed no “community outrage” generated by radio talkback hosts. Continue reading “SafeWorkSA responds to Gottliebsen OHS article”

Tag: government

Quad bike manufacturers resist the inevitable

Like this:

Do Work Health and Safety regulations comply?

Like this:

Wrong safety messages from Australia’s resources minister

Like this:

Another government department limits ATV/quad bike use over safety concerns

Like this:

Will Brodie’s Law deter workplace bullying?

Like this:

The best workers’ compensation option is prevention.

Like this:

SafeWorkSA responds to Gottliebsen OHS article

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: