government – Page 29 – SafetyAtWorkBlog

Useful safety information from the US

One always has to be careful about information released on April Fools’ Day but in 2011 an important pieces of safety information from the United States was released – a video message from the Chemical Safety Board (CSB). A reader also pointed to a set of OHS case studies from the University of Massachusetts Lowell (UMASS) released in January.

Twelve months after the Tesoro Refinery fire in Washington in which seven people died, CSB is continuing its investigation but has released a video message, by Chairperson Rafael Moure-Eraso, that is confronting and displays the exasperation of safety regulators.

Continue reading “Useful safety information from the US”

Election excitement masks OHS confusion

The Liberal Party of New South Wales won last Saturday’s State election in a landslide. The New South Wales employer associations are jubilant but the jubilation masks some confusion over OHS reforms.

The new NSW government is being urged to act promptly on OHS reform issues particularly by the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) and the NSW Business Council but the media statement of the AICD illustrates the confused understanding of the national OHS reforms. It says

“Reforms should include reducing the burden on business of excessive regulation, re-committing NSW to participate in the national reform of occupational health and safety laws and reducing the excessive liability burden imposed on company directors by state legislation.”

“The new government must move decisively in its first term to reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape, which is strangling business.”

It is acknowledged that the introduction of new OHS laws will substantially increase the need for paperwork in order to produce the evidence required to support compliance, due diligence and positive OHS duties on managers. It seems impossible to achieve OHS reforms with also accepting the increased documentation. Continue reading “Election excitement masks OHS confusion”

Authority in denial?

Polite or ignorant?

Coroners can be a polite lot, preferring what they would call ‘substance’ to emotion, accuracy to grand standing. They also hope that their Findings make a difference and help to protect people against a range of lethal circumstances. Ex-coroner Graeme Johnstone (Victoria) was an outstanding example in OHS. So any comments in their Findings ought to be considered against this background.

However, the comments by the South Australian State Coroner Mark Frederick Johns in his Findings (9/2/2011) in the death of Daniel Nicholas Madeley who died (6/6/2004) as a result of an occupational incident are puzzling. Either the man is being very polite or seriously ignorant of what really goes on in industry. And it does matter because coroners carry a lot of authority. Work by Johnstone, Olle and Tasmanian coroners (mining disasters) has been very helpful.

Poor guarding

To paraphrase: Daniel was 18 years old when he died of ‘horrific injuries sustained when he was caught in a horizontal boring machine’. He became entangled in the machine Continue reading “Authority in denial?”

Safe Work Method Statements and independent positions

Over the last few months most Australian OHS regulators, and many labour law firms,have been conducting workshops and public seminars on Australia’s plans to harmonise its OHS legislation. In those workshops, the consultative process and timeframes have been described by some as a “nightmare”, which is not exactly inspiring participants who are seeking clarity from the confusion.

Significantly, others are encouraging the audience to advocate specific positions in potential submissions.

Recently, concerns were raised over the revisions to Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) provisions. It was suggested that SWMS have the potential to bloat beyond several pages due to the need to include “associated risks”. Most safety management systems and OHS professionals would already have include secondary, ancillary or associated risks as part of the job safety analyses and SWMS. Continue reading “Safe Work Method Statements and independent positions”

One person’s red tape is another’s due diligence

Australian business is soon to be required to apply the concept of “due diligence” to occupational health and safety. One would have expected the agency that is coordinating the changes to provide detailed guidance on what is expected from “due diligence”. That is not the case and so, inevitably, lawyers have stepped in (some stepped in some time ago).

Part of the due diligence obligation is that it is necessary to “verify… compliance with the business’ safety obligations” and this is unavoidably achieved by audits and subsequent paperwork. In fact, paperwork is a vital element of support for “evidence-based decision-making”. So it is with some concern that one sees the New South Wales WorkCover Authority is number three on the NSW Business Chamber’s list of “top 5 red tape offenders”(?), released on 9 March 2011 . Continue reading “One person’s red tape is another’s due diligence”

Raising awareness about stress instead of controlling it

In March 2011, in response to one of the several Stress Awareness Days, HRLeader magazine ran an edited version of a Personnel Today article called “5 steps to tackle employee stress”. The Personnel Today had “6 steps”, so are Australian readers being ripped off?

Personnel Today included a step called “Refer the Health and Safety Executive’s management standards”. HRLeader’s editor must have made the call that HSE information is geographically specific and therefore not relevant to Australia but the change is more indicative of the fact that Australia does not have anything to match the HSE management standards to help control stress. According to the HSE website:

“….the six Management Standards cover the primary sources of stress at work. These are:

Demands[1] – this includes issues such as workload, work patterns and the work environment. Continue reading “Raising awareness about stress instead of controlling it”

Daniel’s story

Below is an article submitted to SafetyAtWorkBlog as a comment several days ago. After much deliberation I have decided to publish this as an article for the consideration of readers and in the hope that someone may be willing to provide some practical assistance to Daniel.

Daniel has provided a phone number and email address to SafetyAtWorkBlog. Please contact the Editor if you are able to help.

“This is my story. I have tried different other government departments last year to get some help all I have got is the runaround so I thought I would try here. I really don’t know how to word this or where to begin so I’ll start from 2003. I was working for a company here in Adelaide for about a year when I had an accident at work, a week later I was put on work cover my boss decided to get rid of me because I was no used to him anymore. I spent the next three years on work cover, setting at home and slowly going crazy I spent most of that three years fighting work cover to get them to do something to get me back to work but nothing ever happened. after losing my family and everything I had while I was on work cover,

“Finally I was offered redemption prayer out. It wasn’t much for the price I had to pay to be left with a permanent disability and plus I was suffering from depression from the time I spent on work cover I lost my identity as a person and felt completely demoralized. And feeling Continue reading “Daniel’s story”

Tag: government

Useful safety information from the US

Like this:

Election excitement masks OHS confusion

Like this:

Authority in denial?

Like this:

Safe Work Method Statements and independent positions

Like this:

One person’s red tape is another’s due diligence

Like this:

Raising awareness about stress instead of controlling it

Like this:

Daniel’s story

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: